U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE
3-29-12
Employee With Hepatitis C Fired for Taking Approved Disability Leave, Federal Agency Charges
INDIANAPOLIS -- The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today filed suit against AT&T Corp., a leader in telecommunication services, for failing to reasonably accommodate a long-term employee’s disability and then firing her because of that disability.
According to the EEOC’s suit, Lupe Cardona, who worked for AT&T Corp. as a customer service representative in Indianapolis from 1984, requested a reasonable accommodation in the form of a finite leave of absence in order to receive interferon treatment for Hepatitis C. Without the treatment, her disease could have eventually been fatal. Upon learning of Cardona’s disability and need for a leave of absence, AT&T granted her leave request. Thus, Cardona was on an approved, paid medical leave of absence from June 24 to Oct. 24, 2010, when her physician determined the treatment was successful and released her to return to work without restriction. Two days later, AT&T fired her, claiming her use of approved leave to receive life-saving treatment violated its attendance policy. AT&T refused to provide Cardona a reasonable accommodation by exempting her leave of absence from its no-fault attendance policy.
Such alleged conduct violates the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The EEOC filed its lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana (EEOC v. AT&T Corp., Civil Case No.: 1:12-cv-0402-TWP-DKL) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The EEOC’s lawsuit seeksback pay, compensatory and punitive damages and reinstatement or front pay for Cardona as well as injunctive relief, including a court order prohibiting AT&T from failing to provide reasonable accommodation to disabled employees by counting absences caused by their disability as “chargeable,” or unprotected, absences under its attendance policy.
“The refusal of AT&T to make a perfectly reasonable exception to its draconian attendance policy to accommodate the known disability of an employee violated federal law as well as common sense and common decency,” said EEOC trial attorney Patrick Holman.
Barbara A. Seely, regional attorney of the EEOC’s St. Louis District Office, added, “This employer’s conduct is precisely what Congress had in mind when enacting the ADA. The very essence of reasonable accommodation is making exceptions to hard-and-fast rules in circumstances like this when to do so causes no undue hardship to the employer – and failing to do so might cause grave harm. AT&T’s actions here were not only baffling, but downright cruel.”
The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws against employment discrimination. Further information is available at www.eeoc.gov.
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/3-29-12a.cfm
Showing posts with label reasonable accommodation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label reasonable accommodation. Show all posts
Monday, April 2, 2012
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
California Man With Half an Arm Sues Starbucks, Alleging Discrimination
ABC News
By LYNEKA LITTLE | ABC News – Tue, Feb 14, 2012
Starbucks is facing allegations of discrimination from a job applicant who claimed he was "blatantly" discriminated against because of a disability during a job interview at one of the coffee chain's San Diego stores.
In court documents filed on Feb. 8 at the Superior Court of the State of California in the County of San Diego, Eli Pierre, who was born with half of a left arm, alleged he "was not hired for the position because of his disability, despite his capable work history."
Full Story: http://news.yahoo.com/california-man-files-lawsuit-against-starbucks-alleging-discrimination-202046243--abc-news.html
By LYNEKA LITTLE | ABC News – Tue, Feb 14, 2012
Starbucks is facing allegations of discrimination from a job applicant who claimed he was "blatantly" discriminated against because of a disability during a job interview at one of the coffee chain's San Diego stores.
In court documents filed on Feb. 8 at the Superior Court of the State of California in the County of San Diego, Eli Pierre, who was born with half of a left arm, alleged he "was not hired for the position because of his disability, despite his capable work history."
Full Story: http://news.yahoo.com/california-man-files-lawsuit-against-starbucks-alleging-discrimination-202046243--abc-news.html
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Employers' selection criteria must undergo a reasonable accommodation analysis even if justified by business necessity
Lexology
Husch Blackwell LLP
USA
December 14 2011
On November 17, 2011, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued an informal opinion letter in response to an inquiry by the State of Tennessee concerning students who cannot obtain jobs requiring a high school diploma or equivalent because of learning disabilities that prevented them from meeting end-of-course assessment standards. The EEOC, citing the Americans With Disabilities Act, As Amended (ADAAA) and its regulations, imposed a two-step process the employer must follow in order to comply with the statute: First, the employer must prove that the high school diploma requirement is justified by business necessity, and secondly, even if it is so justified, prove that the applicant could not perform the job with a reasonable accommodation.
Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=ef49983a-9bc6-4e5a-93cf-95d44620d0c2&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+Federal+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2011-12-23&utm_term=
Husch Blackwell LLP
USA
December 14 2011
On November 17, 2011, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued an informal opinion letter in response to an inquiry by the State of Tennessee concerning students who cannot obtain jobs requiring a high school diploma or equivalent because of learning disabilities that prevented them from meeting end-of-course assessment standards. The EEOC, citing the Americans With Disabilities Act, As Amended (ADAAA) and its regulations, imposed a two-step process the employer must follow in order to comply with the statute: First, the employer must prove that the high school diploma requirement is justified by business necessity, and secondly, even if it is so justified, prove that the applicant could not perform the job with a reasonable accommodation.
Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=ef49983a-9bc6-4e5a-93cf-95d44620d0c2&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+Federal+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2011-12-23&utm_term=
Monday, October 24, 2011
Second Circuit finds that employers may be obligated to accommodate a disabled employee's commute
Lexology.com
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
James R. Hays and Jonathan Sokolowski
USA
October 11 2011
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has held that under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Rehabilitation Act, employers may be required to assist disabled employees with their commute.
In Nixon-Tinkelman v. N.Y. City Dep’t of Health & Mental Hygiene, No. 10-3317-cv, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 16569 (2d Cir. N.Y. Aug. 10, 2011), plaintiff Barbara Nixon-Tinkelman (“Plaintiff”), who has cancer, heart problems, asthma, and is hearing impaired, brought suit under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act alleging that the New York City Department of Health & Mental Hygiene (“Defendant” or “DOHMH”) failed to reasonably accommodate her disability. Specifically, following her transfer from Queens to Manhattan, Plaintiff requested that DOHMH accommodate her commute by transferring her back to an office location closer to her home in Queens. DOHMH ultimately denied Plaintiff’s request.
Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=147306f6-6864-4a6c-aa33-83acff69f85e&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Other+top+stories&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2011-10-20&utm_term=
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
James R. Hays and Jonathan Sokolowski
USA
October 11 2011
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has held that under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Rehabilitation Act, employers may be required to assist disabled employees with their commute.
In Nixon-Tinkelman v. N.Y. City Dep’t of Health & Mental Hygiene, No. 10-3317-cv, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 16569 (2d Cir. N.Y. Aug. 10, 2011), plaintiff Barbara Nixon-Tinkelman (“Plaintiff”), who has cancer, heart problems, asthma, and is hearing impaired, brought suit under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act alleging that the New York City Department of Health & Mental Hygiene (“Defendant” or “DOHMH”) failed to reasonably accommodate her disability. Specifically, following her transfer from Queens to Manhattan, Plaintiff requested that DOHMH accommodate her commute by transferring her back to an office location closer to her home in Queens. DOHMH ultimately denied Plaintiff’s request.
Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=147306f6-6864-4a6c-aa33-83acff69f85e&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Other+top+stories&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2011-10-20&utm_term=
Tic Wyoming Agrees To Pay $135,000 To Settle EEOC Lawsuit For Disability Discrimination
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE
10-21-11
Federal Agency Alleges Millwright Unlawfully Fired Over Medical Conditions
DENVER – Casper, Wyo.-based T.I.C.-The Industrial Company Wyoming, Inc., a heavy construction company, has agreed to pay $135,000 and furnish other relief to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced today.
According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, EEOC v. T.I.C.-The Industrial Company Wyoming, Inc., 11-cv-324-F, filed in federal court in Cheyenne on Sept. 30, 2011, millwright Matthew Gilkey, despite satisfactorily performing his job for several weeks, was fired by TIC Wyoming on Oct. 27, 2006, because of the need to make reasonable accommodation for his physical impairments, which included a leg amputation. The EEOC also claimed that TIC Wyoming refused to allow Gilkey to return to work unless he provided medical documentation that he could perform his job duties without medical restrictions. The EEOC further alleged that the company also failed or refused to engage Gilkey in good-faith discussions about accommodations he had requested and TIC Wyoming had previously provided but then withdrew.
In addition to the monetary settlement, TIC Wyoming has agreed, among other things, to provide its employees, supervisors, and managers with annual training for two years on the Americans with Disabilities Act, and to make periodic reports to the EEOC.
“We commend TIC Wyoming for addressing this case head-on, for being willing to work with our Denver Field Office to resolve it, and for its commitment to better educate its management team and work force,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Mary Jo O’Neill of the Phoenix District, which includes Wyoming. “We believe this resolution will help foster a discrimination-free workplace going forward.”
EEOC Denver Field Office Director Nancy Sienko said, “The EEOC stands ready to assist all victims of job discrimination. The volume and increase in ADA charges demonstrate the EEOC's need to stay vigilant in the fight for rights of the disabled.”
TIC Wyoming provides direct-hire construction services to traditional industrial markets.
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. The Phoenix District Office covers Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Arizona and part of New Mexico. Further information is available on the EEOC’s website at www.eeoc.gov.
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/10-21-11.cfm
PRESS RELEASE
10-21-11
Federal Agency Alleges Millwright Unlawfully Fired Over Medical Conditions
DENVER – Casper, Wyo.-based T.I.C.-The Industrial Company Wyoming, Inc., a heavy construction company, has agreed to pay $135,000 and furnish other relief to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced today.
According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, EEOC v. T.I.C.-The Industrial Company Wyoming, Inc., 11-cv-324-F, filed in federal court in Cheyenne on Sept. 30, 2011, millwright Matthew Gilkey, despite satisfactorily performing his job for several weeks, was fired by TIC Wyoming on Oct. 27, 2006, because of the need to make reasonable accommodation for his physical impairments, which included a leg amputation. The EEOC also claimed that TIC Wyoming refused to allow Gilkey to return to work unless he provided medical documentation that he could perform his job duties without medical restrictions. The EEOC further alleged that the company also failed or refused to engage Gilkey in good-faith discussions about accommodations he had requested and TIC Wyoming had previously provided but then withdrew.
In addition to the monetary settlement, TIC Wyoming has agreed, among other things, to provide its employees, supervisors, and managers with annual training for two years on the Americans with Disabilities Act, and to make periodic reports to the EEOC.
“We commend TIC Wyoming for addressing this case head-on, for being willing to work with our Denver Field Office to resolve it, and for its commitment to better educate its management team and work force,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Mary Jo O’Neill of the Phoenix District, which includes Wyoming. “We believe this resolution will help foster a discrimination-free workplace going forward.”
EEOC Denver Field Office Director Nancy Sienko said, “The EEOC stands ready to assist all victims of job discrimination. The volume and increase in ADA charges demonstrate the EEOC's need to stay vigilant in the fight for rights of the disabled.”
TIC Wyoming provides direct-hire construction services to traditional industrial markets.
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. The Phoenix District Office covers Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Arizona and part of New Mexico. Further information is available on the EEOC’s website at www.eeoc.gov.
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/10-21-11.cfm
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Second Circuit finds that employers may be obligated to accommodate a disabled employee's commute
Lexology.com
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
James R. Hays and Jonathan Sokolowski
USA
October 11 2011
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has held that under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Rehabilitation Act, employers may be required to assist disabled employees with their commute.
In Nixon-Tinkelman v. N.Y. City Dep’t of Health & Mental Hygiene, No. 10-3317-cv, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 16569 (2d Cir. N.Y. Aug. 10, 2011), plaintiff Barbara Nixon-Tinkelman (“Plaintiff”), who has cancer, heart problems, asthma, and is hearing impaired, brought suit under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act alleging that the New York City Department of Health & Mental Hygiene (“Defendant” or “DOHMH”) failed to reasonably accommodate her disability. Specifically, following her transfer from Queens to Manhattan, Plaintiff requested that DOHMH accommodate her commute by transferring her back to an office location closer to her home in Queens. DOHMH ultimately denied Plaintiff’s request.
Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=147306f6-6864-4a6c-aa33-83acff69f85e&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+Federal+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2011-10-19&utm_term=
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
James R. Hays and Jonathan Sokolowski
USA
October 11 2011
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has held that under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Rehabilitation Act, employers may be required to assist disabled employees with their commute.
In Nixon-Tinkelman v. N.Y. City Dep’t of Health & Mental Hygiene, No. 10-3317-cv, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 16569 (2d Cir. N.Y. Aug. 10, 2011), plaintiff Barbara Nixon-Tinkelman (“Plaintiff”), who has cancer, heart problems, asthma, and is hearing impaired, brought suit under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act alleging that the New York City Department of Health & Mental Hygiene (“Defendant” or “DOHMH”) failed to reasonably accommodate her disability. Specifically, following her transfer from Queens to Manhattan, Plaintiff requested that DOHMH accommodate her commute by transferring her back to an office location closer to her home in Queens. DOHMH ultimately denied Plaintiff’s request.
Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=147306f6-6864-4a6c-aa33-83acff69f85e&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+Federal+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2011-10-19&utm_term=
Monday, September 19, 2011
EEOC Sues Wal-Mart for Firing Disabled Employee
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE
9-19-11
Carlsbad Store Refuses to Accommodate Employee With Cerebral Palsy After More Than 20 Years of Service, Federal Agency Charges
DALLAS — The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced today that it has filed suit against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. for refusing to allow a long-term employee with cerebral palsy to return to work after a medical leave because of restrictions imposed by her doctor that would have been temporary.
The EEOC charged in its suit, Case No. 2:11-CV-00834 in U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, that a Carlsbad, N.M., Walmart terminated sales clerk Marcia Arney, who was attempting to return to her job following a medical leave for surgery. The surgery had been necessary due to her disability, cerebral palsy. When Arney, who had worked at the store as a sales clerk for 22 years, showed the store manager a note from her doctor stating that she needed to take periodic breaks, he refused to return her to her job, and instead required that she produce a medical release with no restrictions. The EEOC alleges that the medical restriction could have been accommodated by the giant retailer.
“This skilled employee had decades of experience with customers who recognized and greeted her. She had a loyal customer base that also benefited the store. Not allowing her to return to her job or even discuss her temporary restrictions meant the loss of a loyal employee, and violated the federal law against disability discrimination,” said EEOC Supervisory Trial Attorney Toby Wosk Costas.
Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), which prohibits disability discrimination in the workplace. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.
The EEOC seeks injunctive relief, including the formulation of policies to prevent and correct disability discrimination. The suit also seeks damages for Ms. Arney and punitive damages against Wal-Mart.
“Employers need to make sure that they understand and comply with the simplified coverage definitions of the ADA Amendments Act, which has been in effect now for over two years, said Robert A. Canino, regional attorney for the Dallas District Office of the EEOC. “Prior skewed interpretations of the law have been corrected by Congress to ensure that persons like Ms. Arney, who suffer from debilitating conditions, are given opportunities to continue their employment through reasonable accommodations.”
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its website at www.eeoc.gov.
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/9-19-11a.cfm
PRESS RELEASE
9-19-11
Carlsbad Store Refuses to Accommodate Employee With Cerebral Palsy After More Than 20 Years of Service, Federal Agency Charges
DALLAS — The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced today that it has filed suit against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. for refusing to allow a long-term employee with cerebral palsy to return to work after a medical leave because of restrictions imposed by her doctor that would have been temporary.
The EEOC charged in its suit, Case No. 2:11-CV-00834 in U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, that a Carlsbad, N.M., Walmart terminated sales clerk Marcia Arney, who was attempting to return to her job following a medical leave for surgery. The surgery had been necessary due to her disability, cerebral palsy. When Arney, who had worked at the store as a sales clerk for 22 years, showed the store manager a note from her doctor stating that she needed to take periodic breaks, he refused to return her to her job, and instead required that she produce a medical release with no restrictions. The EEOC alleges that the medical restriction could have been accommodated by the giant retailer.
“This skilled employee had decades of experience with customers who recognized and greeted her. She had a loyal customer base that also benefited the store. Not allowing her to return to her job or even discuss her temporary restrictions meant the loss of a loyal employee, and violated the federal law against disability discrimination,” said EEOC Supervisory Trial Attorney Toby Wosk Costas.
Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), which prohibits disability discrimination in the workplace. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.
The EEOC seeks injunctive relief, including the formulation of policies to prevent and correct disability discrimination. The suit also seeks damages for Ms. Arney and punitive damages against Wal-Mart.
“Employers need to make sure that they understand and comply with the simplified coverage definitions of the ADA Amendments Act, which has been in effect now for over two years, said Robert A. Canino, regional attorney for the Dallas District Office of the EEOC. “Prior skewed interpretations of the law have been corrected by Congress to ensure that persons like Ms. Arney, who suffer from debilitating conditions, are given opportunities to continue their employment through reasonable accommodations.”
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its website at www.eeoc.gov.
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/9-19-11a.cfm
Short-term pregnancy complications found not to be a disability
Lexology.com
Franczek Radelet PC
Lisa A. McGarrity and Abizer Zanzi
USA
September 12 2011
In a case of first impression in a court of appeals, the Seventh Circuit recently ruled that pregnancy-related complications can rise to the level of a "disability" within the meaning of the Americans with Disability Act (ADA). However, such complications, if they are of limited duration and dissipate once a woman gives birth, may not be "substantially limiting." Under those circumstances, no "disability" exists and no duty of reasonable accommodation is owed.
In Serednyj v. Beverly Healthcare, LLC, the plaintiff—who planned, coordinated, and conducted activities for nursing-home residents—became pregnant again shortly after having a miscarriage. She continued to perform her duties, some of which were strenuous, for about two months. When she began to experience spotting and cramping, however, her physician restricted her activities to the point that she was unable to perform many of her duties. Due to her short tenure with the nursing home, she was not eligible for FMLA leave, and her employer let her go. She sued, contending among other things that her employer had failed to provide her with a reasonable accommodation and had otherwise discriminated against her in violation of the ADA.
Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=7ffefe4d-6375-4aa8-a677-a8614920ec93&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+Federal+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2011-09-19&utm_term=
Franczek Radelet PC
Lisa A. McGarrity and Abizer Zanzi
USA
September 12 2011
In a case of first impression in a court of appeals, the Seventh Circuit recently ruled that pregnancy-related complications can rise to the level of a "disability" within the meaning of the Americans with Disability Act (ADA). However, such complications, if they are of limited duration and dissipate once a woman gives birth, may not be "substantially limiting." Under those circumstances, no "disability" exists and no duty of reasonable accommodation is owed.
In Serednyj v. Beverly Healthcare, LLC, the plaintiff—who planned, coordinated, and conducted activities for nursing-home residents—became pregnant again shortly after having a miscarriage. She continued to perform her duties, some of which were strenuous, for about two months. When she began to experience spotting and cramping, however, her physician restricted her activities to the point that she was unable to perform many of her duties. Due to her short tenure with the nursing home, she was not eligible for FMLA leave, and her employer let her go. She sued, contending among other things that her employer had failed to provide her with a reasonable accommodation and had otherwise discriminated against her in violation of the ADA.
Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=7ffefe4d-6375-4aa8-a677-a8614920ec93&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+Federal+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2011-09-19&utm_term=
Monday, September 12, 2011
Employer may have duty to accommodate a disabled employee in her commute
Lexology
Sherman & Howard LLC
Theodore A. Olsen
USA
September 1 2011
In a case that could make landmark law, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that an employer may, depending on the circumstances, be obligated to make reasonable accommodation for a disabled employee's commute to and from work. Nixon-Tinkelman v. N.Y.C. Dept. of Health & Mental Hygiene, No. 10-3317-cv (2d Cir. Aug. 10, 2011). The decision reversed a lower federal court decision that an employer has no legal duty to accommodate a worker's commute, as the commute is "outside the scope" of the employee's job.
In Nixon-Tinkelman, the plaintiff - who has a hearing impairment, cancer, heart problems and asthma - was transferred from Queens to Manhattan for 13 months, during which she complained about problems associated with her commute. The Second Circuit held that possible accommodations for her may have been "transferring her back to Queens or another closer location, allowing her to work from home, or providing a car or parking permit." The Court's reference to the accommodation of working from home deviated from traditional disability accommodation law.
Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=c9c1de1a-e283-4a35-8986-bd65bd65da5d&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Other+top+stories&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2011-09-09&utm_term=
Sherman & Howard LLC
Theodore A. Olsen
USA
September 1 2011
In a case that could make landmark law, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that an employer may, depending on the circumstances, be obligated to make reasonable accommodation for a disabled employee's commute to and from work. Nixon-Tinkelman v. N.Y.C. Dept. of Health & Mental Hygiene, No. 10-3317-cv (2d Cir. Aug. 10, 2011). The decision reversed a lower federal court decision that an employer has no legal duty to accommodate a worker's commute, as the commute is "outside the scope" of the employee's job.
In Nixon-Tinkelman, the plaintiff - who has a hearing impairment, cancer, heart problems and asthma - was transferred from Queens to Manhattan for 13 months, during which she complained about problems associated with her commute. The Second Circuit held that possible accommodations for her may have been "transferring her back to Queens or another closer location, allowing her to work from home, or providing a car or parking permit." The Court's reference to the accommodation of working from home deviated from traditional disability accommodation law.
Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=c9c1de1a-e283-4a35-8986-bd65bd65da5d&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Other+top+stories&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2011-09-09&utm_term=
Outback Steakhouse Sued by EEOC for Disability Discrimination
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE
9-7-11
Company Fired Employee Because of Disability And/or Because He Needed a Reasonable Accommodation
PHOENIX — A Phoenix, Ariz., Outback Steakhouse restaurant violated federal law by firing an employee on the basis of his disability and/or because he needed a reasonable accommodation, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it filed today.
According to the EEOC’s suit against OSI Restaurant Partners, LLC d/b/a Outback Steakhouse and OS Restaurant Services, Inc., server John Woods, who suffers from traumatic brain injury, worked as a server from November, 2009 until approximately January, 2010, when he was fired. The EEOC charged that Outback terminated Woods’ employment because of his disability and/or because he needed a reasonable accommodation.
Such alleged conduct violates Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as amended by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA), which prohibits private employers from discriminating against qualified individuals with disabilities in hiring, firing, advancement, compensation, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. OSI Restaurant Partners, LLC d/b/a Outback Steakhouse and OS Restaurant Services, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:11-cv-01754-NVW) in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The lawsuit seeks back pay, compensatory and punitive damages for Woods, as well as appropriate injunctive relief to prevent any further discriminatory practices.
“Recent amendments to the ADA make clear that the protections for persons with disabilities should be broadly applied,” said Mary Jo O’Neill, regional attorney for the EEOC's Phoenix District Office. “The ADA, as amended, was intended to ensure that workers with disabilities have equal employment opportunities. Terminating an employee because he is disabled or because he needed a reasonable accommodation is unlawful.”
EEOC District Director Rayford O. Irvin added, “We will vigorously pursue our mission of fighting employment discrimination on all fronts. The EEOC continues to fight for the rights of people discriminated against because they are disabled.”
The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. The EEOC’s Phoenix District Office has jurisdiction for Arizona, Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, and part of New Mexico (including Albuquerque). Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/9-7-11b.cfm
PRESS RELEASE
9-7-11
Company Fired Employee Because of Disability And/or Because He Needed a Reasonable Accommodation
PHOENIX — A Phoenix, Ariz., Outback Steakhouse restaurant violated federal law by firing an employee on the basis of his disability and/or because he needed a reasonable accommodation, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it filed today.
According to the EEOC’s suit against OSI Restaurant Partners, LLC d/b/a Outback Steakhouse and OS Restaurant Services, Inc., server John Woods, who suffers from traumatic brain injury, worked as a server from November, 2009 until approximately January, 2010, when he was fired. The EEOC charged that Outback terminated Woods’ employment because of his disability and/or because he needed a reasonable accommodation.
Such alleged conduct violates Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as amended by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA), which prohibits private employers from discriminating against qualified individuals with disabilities in hiring, firing, advancement, compensation, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. OSI Restaurant Partners, LLC d/b/a Outback Steakhouse and OS Restaurant Services, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:11-cv-01754-NVW) in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The lawsuit seeks back pay, compensatory and punitive damages for Woods, as well as appropriate injunctive relief to prevent any further discriminatory practices.
“Recent amendments to the ADA make clear that the protections for persons with disabilities should be broadly applied,” said Mary Jo O’Neill, regional attorney for the EEOC's Phoenix District Office. “The ADA, as amended, was intended to ensure that workers with disabilities have equal employment opportunities. Terminating an employee because he is disabled or because he needed a reasonable accommodation is unlawful.”
EEOC District Director Rayford O. Irvin added, “We will vigorously pursue our mission of fighting employment discrimination on all fronts. The EEOC continues to fight for the rights of people discriminated against because they are disabled.”
The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. The EEOC’s Phoenix District Office has jurisdiction for Arizona, Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, and part of New Mexico (including Albuquerque). Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/9-7-11b.cfm
Monday, July 18, 2011
Court Says Injured Wal-Mart Worker Can Pursue Retaliation Claim
Workforce.com
After the fall, Cox returned to work in May 2007 and Wal-Mart afforded her several accommodations, court records state. But she alleges that Wal-Mart disciplined and fired her after she invoked her rights under Oregon’s workers’ compensation law. July 11, 2011
A woman can proceed with a lawsuit alleging that Wal-Mart Stores Inc. violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and retaliated against her for demanding her workers’ compensation rights, a federal appeals court has ruled in a split decision.
The July 6 ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Heidi M. Cox vs. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. overturned a district court ruling that had granted Wal-Mart summary judgment in the case involving the Oregon employee who was injured in a fall.
Full Story: http://www.workforce.com/section/news/article/court-says-injured-wal-mart-worker-can-pursue-retaliation.php
After the fall, Cox returned to work in May 2007 and Wal-Mart afforded her several accommodations, court records state. But she alleges that Wal-Mart disciplined and fired her after she invoked her rights under Oregon’s workers’ compensation law. July 11, 2011
A woman can proceed with a lawsuit alleging that Wal-Mart Stores Inc. violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and retaliated against her for demanding her workers’ compensation rights, a federal appeals court has ruled in a split decision.
The July 6 ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Heidi M. Cox vs. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. overturned a district court ruling that had granted Wal-Mart summary judgment in the case involving the Oregon employee who was injured in a fall.
Full Story: http://www.workforce.com/section/news/article/court-says-injured-wal-mart-worker-can-pursue-retaliation.php
EEOC Files Disability Discrimination Lawsuit Against Johns Hopkins Home Care Group
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE
7-14-11
Health Care Provider Refused Accommodation to Employee With Breast Cancer, Then Fired Her, Federal Agency Charged
BALTIMORE – Johns Hopkins Home Care Group, Inc. (JHHCG), a full-service home health care provider, violated federal law when it fired an employee because of her disability and because she challenged the company’s failure to accommodate her, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it announced today.
According to the EEOC’s suit, JHHCG had employed Ray Ellen Fisher, a registered nurse, as a pediatric case manager since 2003. According to the complaint, Fisher was diagnosed with breast cancer in September 2009 and shortly thereafter began medical treatment for her disability. JHHCG refused to provide Fisher with reasonable accommodations to enable her to return to work in a pediatric case manager job or an appropriate alternate position, despite Fisher’s being released to return to work with limited restrictions that were phased out and ultimately eliminated. As a result of JHHCG’s refusal to reasonably accommodate her, Fisher filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC. The EEOC said that Fisher was subsequently subjected to adverse employment actions, including termination, in retaliation for her having filed the charge.
Such alleged conduct violates the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). The EEOC filed suit (Case No. 11-cv-01911) in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The agency seeks injunctive relief and punitive damages as well as lost wages and benefits because of JHHCG’s discrimination.
“Federal law clearly obligates employers to work with disabled employees to determine how best to accommodate them,” said Regional Attorney Debra Lawrence of the EEOC’s Philadelphia District Office, which oversees Pennsylvania, Delaware, West Virginia, Maryland, and portions of New Jersey and Ohio. “Further, retaliating against someone for filing a discrimination charge is unlawful, and the EEOC will continue to vigorously prosecute cases where the employer has punished an employee for simply exercising her rights under the law.”
According to the company’s website, Johns Hopkins Home Care Group, Inc. is owned and operated by Johns Hopkins Health System and Johns Hopkins University and has been servicing Maryland since 1983.
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.
PRESS RELEASE
7-14-11
Health Care Provider Refused Accommodation to Employee With Breast Cancer, Then Fired Her, Federal Agency Charged
BALTIMORE – Johns Hopkins Home Care Group, Inc. (JHHCG), a full-service home health care provider, violated federal law when it fired an employee because of her disability and because she challenged the company’s failure to accommodate her, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it announced today.
According to the EEOC’s suit, JHHCG had employed Ray Ellen Fisher, a registered nurse, as a pediatric case manager since 2003. According to the complaint, Fisher was diagnosed with breast cancer in September 2009 and shortly thereafter began medical treatment for her disability. JHHCG refused to provide Fisher with reasonable accommodations to enable her to return to work in a pediatric case manager job or an appropriate alternate position, despite Fisher’s being released to return to work with limited restrictions that were phased out and ultimately eliminated. As a result of JHHCG’s refusal to reasonably accommodate her, Fisher filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC. The EEOC said that Fisher was subsequently subjected to adverse employment actions, including termination, in retaliation for her having filed the charge.
Such alleged conduct violates the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). The EEOC filed suit (Case No. 11-cv-01911) in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The agency seeks injunctive relief and punitive damages as well as lost wages and benefits because of JHHCG’s discrimination.
“Federal law clearly obligates employers to work with disabled employees to determine how best to accommodate them,” said Regional Attorney Debra Lawrence of the EEOC’s Philadelphia District Office, which oversees Pennsylvania, Delaware, West Virginia, Maryland, and portions of New Jersey and Ohio. “Further, retaliating against someone for filing a discrimination charge is unlawful, and the EEOC will continue to vigorously prosecute cases where the employer has punished an employee for simply exercising her rights under the law.”
According to the company’s website, Johns Hopkins Home Care Group, Inc. is owned and operated by Johns Hopkins Health System and Johns Hopkins University and has been servicing Maryland since 1983.
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Verizon to Pay $20 Million to Settle Nationwide EEOC Disability Suit
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE
7-6-11
Largest ADA Settlement in EEOC History for Hundreds of Employees Terminated or Disciplined Based on Rigid Attendance Policy
BALTIMORE – Telecommunications giant Verizon Communications will pay $20 million and provide significant equitable relief to resolve a nationwide class disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today. The suit, filed against 24 named subsidiaries of Verizon Communications, said the company unlawfully denied reasonable accommodations to hundreds of employees and disciplined and/or fired them pursuant to Verizon’s “no fault” attendance plans.
The consent decree settling the suit, which is pending judicial approval, represents the largest disability discrimination settlement in a single lawsuit in EEOC history. The EEOC charged that Verizon violated the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) by refusing to make exceptions to its “no fault” attendance plans to accommodate employees with disabilities. Under the challenged attendance plans, if an employee accumulated a designated number of “chargeable absences,” Verizon placed the employee on a disciplinary step which could ultimately result in more serious disciplinary consequences, including termination.
The EEOC asserted that Verizon failed to provide reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities, such as making an exception to its attendance plans for individuals whose “chargeable absences” were caused by their disabilities. Instead, the EEOC said, the company disciplined or terminated employees who needed such accommodations.
The ADA prohibits discrimination based on disability. The law also requires an employer to provide a reasonable accommodation, such as paid or unpaid leave, to an employee with a disability, unless doing so would cause significant difficulty or expense for the employer.
“Flexibility on leave can enable a worker with a disability to remain employed and productive -- a win for the worker, the employer and the economy,” said EEOC Chair Jacqueline A. Berrien. “By contrast, an inflexible leave policy may deny workers with disabilities a reasonable accommodation to which they’re entitled by law – with devastating effects.” Chair Berrien presided over a Commission meeting earlier this month on leave as a reasonable accommodation.
"I am pleased the parties were able to resolve this historic case without resorting to prolonged and expensive litigation," said EEOC General Counsel P. David Lopez. "Hopefully this nationwide decree will further public awareness of the importance of engaging in an individualized interactive process to determine whether a disabled employee must be accommodated under the ADA."
The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Civil Action No. 1-11-cv-01832-JKB, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The EEOC filed its lawsuit and the proposed consent decree resolving the suit on the same day. The consent decree resolves the EEOC’s lawsuit, an EEOC Commissioner charge, a charge filed by the Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, and over 40 individual charges filed with the EEOC. The investigation involved coordinated systemic efforts by EEOC’s Baltimore Field Office and Newark Area Office.
“This settlement demonstrates the need for employers to have attendance policies which take into account the need for paid or unpaid leave as a reasonable accommodation for employees with disabilities,” said Spencer H. Lewis, Jr., Director of the EEOC’s Philadelphia District Office, which oversees Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, West Virginia, and parts of New Jersey and Ohio.
In addition to the $20 million in monetary relief, the three-year decree includes injunctions against engaging in any discrimination or retaliation based on disability, and requires the company to revise its attendance plans, policies and ADA policy to include reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities, including excusing certain absences. Verizon will provide mandatory periodic training on the ADA to employees primarily responsible for administering Verizon’s attendance plans. The company will report to the EEOC about all employee complaints of disability discrimination relating to the attendance policy and about Verizon’s compliance with the consent decree. The company also agreed to post a notice about the settlement. Finally, Verizon will appoint an internal consent decree monitor to ensure its compliance. The settlement applies to certain Verizon wireline operations nationwide which employ union-represented employees.
EEOC Regional Attorney Debra Lawrence said, “This consent decree is the result of productive and thoughtful negotiations with Verizon. We appreciate Verizon working with the EEOC to reach a settlement. In addition to providing meaningful monetary relief for hundreds of former Verizon employees, the settlement contains important equitable relief, including company policy changes and training designed to provide people with disabilities equal opportunities in the workplace.”
According to its website, www.verizon.com, Verizon Communications Inc., headquartered in New York, is a global leader in delivering broadband and other wireless and wireline communications services to mass market, business, government and wholesale customers. Verizon has more than 196,000 employees and last year generated consolidated revenues of $106.6 billion.
In fiscal year 2010, private sector workplace discrimination charge filings with the EEOC hit an unprecedented level of 99,922, which included a record-high number of disability charges (25,165) – an increase of 17.3 percent in disability charges over the prior fiscal year.
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the Commission is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.
http://www.linkedin.com/news?viewArticle=&articleID=619792539&gid=1715707&type=member&item=61250704&articleURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eeeoc%2Egov%2Feeoc%2Fnewsroom%2Frelease%2F7-6-11a%2Ecfm&urlhash=mrFu&goback=%2Egde_1715707_member_61250704
PRESS RELEASE
7-6-11
Largest ADA Settlement in EEOC History for Hundreds of Employees Terminated or Disciplined Based on Rigid Attendance Policy
BALTIMORE – Telecommunications giant Verizon Communications will pay $20 million and provide significant equitable relief to resolve a nationwide class disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today. The suit, filed against 24 named subsidiaries of Verizon Communications, said the company unlawfully denied reasonable accommodations to hundreds of employees and disciplined and/or fired them pursuant to Verizon’s “no fault” attendance plans.
The consent decree settling the suit, which is pending judicial approval, represents the largest disability discrimination settlement in a single lawsuit in EEOC history. The EEOC charged that Verizon violated the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) by refusing to make exceptions to its “no fault” attendance plans to accommodate employees with disabilities. Under the challenged attendance plans, if an employee accumulated a designated number of “chargeable absences,” Verizon placed the employee on a disciplinary step which could ultimately result in more serious disciplinary consequences, including termination.
The EEOC asserted that Verizon failed to provide reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities, such as making an exception to its attendance plans for individuals whose “chargeable absences” were caused by their disabilities. Instead, the EEOC said, the company disciplined or terminated employees who needed such accommodations.
The ADA prohibits discrimination based on disability. The law also requires an employer to provide a reasonable accommodation, such as paid or unpaid leave, to an employee with a disability, unless doing so would cause significant difficulty or expense for the employer.
“Flexibility on leave can enable a worker with a disability to remain employed and productive -- a win for the worker, the employer and the economy,” said EEOC Chair Jacqueline A. Berrien. “By contrast, an inflexible leave policy may deny workers with disabilities a reasonable accommodation to which they’re entitled by law – with devastating effects.” Chair Berrien presided over a Commission meeting earlier this month on leave as a reasonable accommodation.
"I am pleased the parties were able to resolve this historic case without resorting to prolonged and expensive litigation," said EEOC General Counsel P. David Lopez. "Hopefully this nationwide decree will further public awareness of the importance of engaging in an individualized interactive process to determine whether a disabled employee must be accommodated under the ADA."
The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Civil Action No. 1-11-cv-01832-JKB, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The EEOC filed its lawsuit and the proposed consent decree resolving the suit on the same day. The consent decree resolves the EEOC’s lawsuit, an EEOC Commissioner charge, a charge filed by the Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, and over 40 individual charges filed with the EEOC. The investigation involved coordinated systemic efforts by EEOC’s Baltimore Field Office and Newark Area Office.
“This settlement demonstrates the need for employers to have attendance policies which take into account the need for paid or unpaid leave as a reasonable accommodation for employees with disabilities,” said Spencer H. Lewis, Jr., Director of the EEOC’s Philadelphia District Office, which oversees Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, West Virginia, and parts of New Jersey and Ohio.
In addition to the $20 million in monetary relief, the three-year decree includes injunctions against engaging in any discrimination or retaliation based on disability, and requires the company to revise its attendance plans, policies and ADA policy to include reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities, including excusing certain absences. Verizon will provide mandatory periodic training on the ADA to employees primarily responsible for administering Verizon’s attendance plans. The company will report to the EEOC about all employee complaints of disability discrimination relating to the attendance policy and about Verizon’s compliance with the consent decree. The company also agreed to post a notice about the settlement. Finally, Verizon will appoint an internal consent decree monitor to ensure its compliance. The settlement applies to certain Verizon wireline operations nationwide which employ union-represented employees.
EEOC Regional Attorney Debra Lawrence said, “This consent decree is the result of productive and thoughtful negotiations with Verizon. We appreciate Verizon working with the EEOC to reach a settlement. In addition to providing meaningful monetary relief for hundreds of former Verizon employees, the settlement contains important equitable relief, including company policy changes and training designed to provide people with disabilities equal opportunities in the workplace.”
According to its website, www.verizon.com, Verizon Communications Inc., headquartered in New York, is a global leader in delivering broadband and other wireless and wireline communications services to mass market, business, government and wholesale customers. Verizon has more than 196,000 employees and last year generated consolidated revenues of $106.6 billion.
In fiscal year 2010, private sector workplace discrimination charge filings with the EEOC hit an unprecedented level of 99,922, which included a record-high number of disability charges (25,165) – an increase of 17.3 percent in disability charges over the prior fiscal year.
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the Commission is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.
http://www.linkedin.com/news?viewArticle=&articleID=619792539&gid=1715707&type=member&item=61250704&articleURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eeeoc%2Egov%2Feeoc%2Fnewsroom%2Frelease%2F7-6-11a%2Ecfm&urlhash=mrFu&goback=%2Egde_1715707_member_61250704
Monday, June 6, 2011
EEOC to Examine Use of Leave As Reasonable Accommodation
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE
6-3-11
Will Hold Public Meeting June 8 at Agency Headquarters
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) will hold a public meeting on Wednesday, June 8, at 9:30 a.m. (Eastern Time), at agency headquarters, 131 M Street, N.E., to examine the use of leave as a reasonable accommodation. In accordance with the Sunshine Act, the meeting is open for public observation of the Commission’s deliberations.
The Commission will hear from invited panelists on the appropriate use of disability leave as a reasonable accommodation and on complying with relevant regulations. The meeting agenda includes:
Panel 1: EEOC’s Current Position and Policy Statements
Christopher Kuczynski, Assistant Legal Council, EEOC
John Hendrickson, Regional Attorney, EEOC
Panel 2: How to Comply with the Law and Appropriately Permit Leave to Employees
Brian East, Senior Attorney, Texas Disability Rights
Claudia Center, Director, Disability Rights Program, Legal Aid Society -- Employment Law Center
Ellen McLaughlin, Partner, Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Edward Isler, Partner, Isler Dare Ray Radcliffe & Connolly, P.C.
A brief question-and-answer session with EEOC Commissioners will follow each panel discussion.
Seating is limited and it is suggested that visitors arrive 30 minutes before the meeting in order to be processed through security and escorted to the meeting room. The Commission agenda is subject to revision. Additional information about the hearing, when available, will be posted at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/meetings/index.cfm.
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/6-3-11.cfm
PRESS RELEASE
6-3-11
Will Hold Public Meeting June 8 at Agency Headquarters
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) will hold a public meeting on Wednesday, June 8, at 9:30 a.m. (Eastern Time), at agency headquarters, 131 M Street, N.E., to examine the use of leave as a reasonable accommodation. In accordance with the Sunshine Act, the meeting is open for public observation of the Commission’s deliberations.
The Commission will hear from invited panelists on the appropriate use of disability leave as a reasonable accommodation and on complying with relevant regulations. The meeting agenda includes:
Panel 1: EEOC’s Current Position and Policy Statements
Christopher Kuczynski, Assistant Legal Council, EEOC
John Hendrickson, Regional Attorney, EEOC
Panel 2: How to Comply with the Law and Appropriately Permit Leave to Employees
Brian East, Senior Attorney, Texas Disability Rights
Claudia Center, Director, Disability Rights Program, Legal Aid Society -- Employment Law Center
Ellen McLaughlin, Partner, Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Edward Isler, Partner, Isler Dare Ray Radcliffe & Connolly, P.C.
A brief question-and-answer session with EEOC Commissioners will follow each panel discussion.
Seating is limited and it is suggested that visitors arrive 30 minutes before the meeting in order to be processed through security and escorted to the meeting room. The Commission agenda is subject to revision. Additional information about the hearing, when available, will be posted at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/meetings/index.cfm.
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/6-3-11.cfm
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Lawsuit by deaf employee based on failure to provide sign language interpreter sent to jury
Lexology.com
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
USA August 30 2010
In a recent decision involving a deaf employee’s professed need for a sign language interpreter to understand and participate in mandatory departmental meetings, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously reaffirmed that pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), an appropriate “reasonable accommodation” must be effective to enable a covered employee to enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment.
In the case of U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions, - F.3d -, 2010 WL 3366256 (9th Cir., August 27, 2010) ("UPS"), the Ninth Circuit held that it was for a jury to decide whether UPS's accommodations to a deaf employee were effective, and whether UPS was aware, or should have been aware, that its accommodations were not effective.
Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=38614a69-56df-4829-9872-4cfacc6e8baa&utm_source=Lexology%20Daily%20Newsfeed&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Lexology%20subscriber%20daily%20feed&utm_content=Lexology%20Daily%20Newsfeed%202010-09-07&utm_term=
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
USA August 30 2010
In a recent decision involving a deaf employee’s professed need for a sign language interpreter to understand and participate in mandatory departmental meetings, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously reaffirmed that pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), an appropriate “reasonable accommodation” must be effective to enable a covered employee to enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment.
In the case of U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions, - F.3d -, 2010 WL 3366256 (9th Cir., August 27, 2010) ("UPS"), the Ninth Circuit held that it was for a jury to decide whether UPS's accommodations to a deaf employee were effective, and whether UPS was aware, or should have been aware, that its accommodations were not effective.
Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=38614a69-56df-4829-9872-4cfacc6e8baa&utm_source=Lexology%20Daily%20Newsfeed&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Lexology%20subscriber%20daily%20feed&utm_content=Lexology%20Daily%20Newsfeed%202010-09-07&utm_term=
Monday, August 30, 2010
Disability discrimination and the interactive process
Lexology.com
Dorsey & Whitney LLP
Rebecca Girn USA
August 11 2010
One of our manufacturing employees, call him Jim, was fairly seriously injured in an accident on the production floor. Jim applied for workers’ compensation and was examined by a doctor. The doctor let us know in his opinion, Jim would no longer be able to perform his job, since it required a significant amount of lifting and bending that he was simply no longer physically capable of doing. Rather than taking immediate action based on the doctor’s opinion, we waited. We thought maybe his condition would improve – Jim was a good employee, and we just didn’t want to do anything too hasty.
Meanwhile, we knew Jim was aware of the doctor’s report that he could not return to his job, but he didn’t get in touch with us to contradict it or to tell us he did want to try to return to work if we could find a way to have him do it. Admittedly, we did not try to contact him either. The months passed, and he never did get in touch with us or communicate that he wanted to return. Finally, 8 months later, we decided it was time to terminate him, since he had shown no signs of wanting to come back to work, even if he could. We sent him a letter enclosing the doctor’s report and explaining that we were forced to terminate employment since he could not perform his job, and there was no other job available.
Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=a6fa14cc-bfb3-4a11-b71d-560e97d55af3&utm_source=Lexology%20Daily%20Newsfeed&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Lexology%20subscriber%20daily%20feed&utm_content=Lexology%20Daily%20Newsfeed%202010-08-26&utm_term=
Dorsey & Whitney LLP
Rebecca Girn USA
August 11 2010
One of our manufacturing employees, call him Jim, was fairly seriously injured in an accident on the production floor. Jim applied for workers’ compensation and was examined by a doctor. The doctor let us know in his opinion, Jim would no longer be able to perform his job, since it required a significant amount of lifting and bending that he was simply no longer physically capable of doing. Rather than taking immediate action based on the doctor’s opinion, we waited. We thought maybe his condition would improve – Jim was a good employee, and we just didn’t want to do anything too hasty.
Meanwhile, we knew Jim was aware of the doctor’s report that he could not return to his job, but he didn’t get in touch with us to contradict it or to tell us he did want to try to return to work if we could find a way to have him do it. Admittedly, we did not try to contact him either. The months passed, and he never did get in touch with us or communicate that he wanted to return. Finally, 8 months later, we decided it was time to terminate him, since he had shown no signs of wanting to come back to work, even if he could. We sent him a letter enclosing the doctor’s report and explaining that we were forced to terminate employment since he could not perform his job, and there was no other job available.
Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=a6fa14cc-bfb3-4a11-b71d-560e97d55af3&utm_source=Lexology%20Daily%20Newsfeed&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Lexology%20subscriber%20daily%20feed&utm_content=Lexology%20Daily%20Newsfeed%202010-08-26&utm_term=
Sunday, July 4, 2010
PETCO To Pay $145,000 For Failing To Accommodate Deaf Pet Groomer
US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE
6-29-10
Deaf Groomer Penalized for Inability to Speak While Her Customers Were Funneled to Non-Deaf Employees, EEOC Charged
DENVER – Pet store giant PETCO Animal Supplies Stores, Inc. will pay $145,000 and furnish other relief to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today. The EEOC had charged the company with failing to accommodate a deaf pet groomer formerly employed at one of its stores in Aurora, Colo.
According to the EEOC, San Diego-based PETCO hired Nancy Buchner – who has over 30 years’ pet grooming experience – as a pet stylist in 2001. Profoundly deaf since birth, Buchner communicates most effectively in sign language. Upon hire, PETCO’s management assured Buchner that other employees would assist in scheduling her appointments via telephone as a reasonable accommodation.
However, the EEOC asserted that a PETCO manager eventually refused to schedule customers for her, despite requests for Buchner specifically. In fact, PETCO employees inaccurately informed customers that Buchner no longer worked for the company as a means to funnel them to non-disabled pet groomers, according to the EEOC. PETCO proceeded to unfairly penalize her during annual performance reviews for ineffective communication skills due to her inability to speak. Buchner eventually resigned in 2006.
The EEOC filed suit against PETCO in April 2009 in U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. PETCO Animal Supplies Stores, Inc., Case No. 09-CV-00747 WYD-CBS), asserting that PETCO failed to reasonably accommodate Buchner and subjected her to disparate treatment due to her disability, in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). The investigation and litigation of the case was a joint venture between the EEOC’s Denver Field Office, under the purview of the Phoenix District Office, and the Los Angeles District Office, which negotiated the final three-year consent decree settling the suit.
Aside from the monetary relief, the decree requires PETCO to implement an internal policy, procedures and staff training to safeguard against disability discrimination. PETCO must also submit annual reports to the EEOC to track future complaints of disability bias and requests for disability-related accommodations.
“We commend PETCO for implementing a companywide policy to prevent and address disability discrimination in the workplace,” said Anna Y. Park, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Los Angeles District Office. “We encourage other employers to follow suit and be mindful of the ADA in light of its recent amendment.”
Olophius E. Perry, district director of the EEOC’s Los Angeles District Office, said, “With the 20th anniversary of the ADA on the horizon, it is important to remember that employees with disabilities are entitled to reasonable accommodations to ensure they have equal employment opportunities. Most often, as was the case here, the cost of accommodations is minimal.”
The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws against employment discrimination. Further information is available at www.eeoc.gov.
PRESS RELEASE
6-29-10
Deaf Groomer Penalized for Inability to Speak While Her Customers Were Funneled to Non-Deaf Employees, EEOC Charged
DENVER – Pet store giant PETCO Animal Supplies Stores, Inc. will pay $145,000 and furnish other relief to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today. The EEOC had charged the company with failing to accommodate a deaf pet groomer formerly employed at one of its stores in Aurora, Colo.
According to the EEOC, San Diego-based PETCO hired Nancy Buchner – who has over 30 years’ pet grooming experience – as a pet stylist in 2001. Profoundly deaf since birth, Buchner communicates most effectively in sign language. Upon hire, PETCO’s management assured Buchner that other employees would assist in scheduling her appointments via telephone as a reasonable accommodation.
However, the EEOC asserted that a PETCO manager eventually refused to schedule customers for her, despite requests for Buchner specifically. In fact, PETCO employees inaccurately informed customers that Buchner no longer worked for the company as a means to funnel them to non-disabled pet groomers, according to the EEOC. PETCO proceeded to unfairly penalize her during annual performance reviews for ineffective communication skills due to her inability to speak. Buchner eventually resigned in 2006.
The EEOC filed suit against PETCO in April 2009 in U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. PETCO Animal Supplies Stores, Inc., Case No. 09-CV-00747 WYD-CBS), asserting that PETCO failed to reasonably accommodate Buchner and subjected her to disparate treatment due to her disability, in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). The investigation and litigation of the case was a joint venture between the EEOC’s Denver Field Office, under the purview of the Phoenix District Office, and the Los Angeles District Office, which negotiated the final three-year consent decree settling the suit.
Aside from the monetary relief, the decree requires PETCO to implement an internal policy, procedures and staff training to safeguard against disability discrimination. PETCO must also submit annual reports to the EEOC to track future complaints of disability bias and requests for disability-related accommodations.
“We commend PETCO for implementing a companywide policy to prevent and address disability discrimination in the workplace,” said Anna Y. Park, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Los Angeles District Office. “We encourage other employers to follow suit and be mindful of the ADA in light of its recent amendment.”
Olophius E. Perry, district director of the EEOC’s Los Angeles District Office, said, “With the 20th anniversary of the ADA on the horizon, it is important to remember that employees with disabilities are entitled to reasonable accommodations to ensure they have equal employment opportunities. Most often, as was the case here, the cost of accommodations is minimal.”
The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws against employment discrimination. Further information is available at www.eeoc.gov.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Failure to engage in interactive process immaterial if accommodation not possible
Lexology
Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
Kevin B Leblang and Robert N Holtzman
USA March 10 2010
A recent decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit clarifies the extent of an employer's obligation under the Americans with Disabilities Act to engage in an interactive process with an employee to identify a reasonable accommodation. Importantly, the court held that an employer's failure to engage in an interactive process does not form the basis of a claim under the act in the absence of evidence that an accommodation was possible which would have permitted the employee to perform the essential functions of the job.
In McBride v BIC Consumer Products Manufacturing Co(1) McBride rejected an accommodation that BIC Consumer Products Manufacturing Co offered her on her return from medical leave. The parties did not discuss any additional potential accommodations and, notably, McBride never proposed any alternative accommodation. Although there were several vacant positions at BIC around the time of McBride's termination, she failed to demonstrate that she was qualified for any of the available positions. At the expiration of McBride's medical leave, BIC terminated her employment.
McBride argued that she should have been excused from having to provide evidence of an accommodation that would have permitted her to perform the essential functions of her position because BIC supposedly refused to engage in an interactive process concerning possible accommodations – an argument squarely rejected by the court. Rather, the court found that the act does not impose liability on an employer for failure to engage in an interactive process where no accommodation is in fact possible.
Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=a435ff3c-fa88-4389-8f23-532677517d06&utm_source=Lexology%20Daily%20Newsfeed&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Lexology%20subscriber%20daily%20feed&utm_content=Lexology%20Daily%20Newsfeed%202010-05-05&utm_term=
Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
Kevin B Leblang and Robert N Holtzman
USA March 10 2010
A recent decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit clarifies the extent of an employer's obligation under the Americans with Disabilities Act to engage in an interactive process with an employee to identify a reasonable accommodation. Importantly, the court held that an employer's failure to engage in an interactive process does not form the basis of a claim under the act in the absence of evidence that an accommodation was possible which would have permitted the employee to perform the essential functions of the job.
In McBride v BIC Consumer Products Manufacturing Co(1) McBride rejected an accommodation that BIC Consumer Products Manufacturing Co offered her on her return from medical leave. The parties did not discuss any additional potential accommodations and, notably, McBride never proposed any alternative accommodation. Although there were several vacant positions at BIC around the time of McBride's termination, she failed to demonstrate that she was qualified for any of the available positions. At the expiration of McBride's medical leave, BIC terminated her employment.
McBride argued that she should have been excused from having to provide evidence of an accommodation that would have permitted her to perform the essential functions of her position because BIC supposedly refused to engage in an interactive process concerning possible accommodations – an argument squarely rejected by the court. Rather, the court found that the act does not impose liability on an employer for failure to engage in an interactive process where no accommodation is in fact possible.
Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=a435ff3c-fa88-4389-8f23-532677517d06&utm_source=Lexology%20Daily%20Newsfeed&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Lexology%20subscriber%20daily%20feed&utm_content=Lexology%20Daily%20Newsfeed%202010-05-05&utm_term=
Monday, February 1, 2010
Blind student wins computer aid for bar exam
SFGate.com
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Sunday, January 31, 2010
A blind law student can use computer-assisted reading devices in next month's bar exam, a federal judge has ruled, rejecting the examiners' arguments that the assistance was too generous and might let someone steal the test questions.
U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer of San Francisco ordered the National Conference of Bar Examiners on Friday to accommodate Stephanie Enyart, who was born sighted but suffers from macular degeneration and retinal dystrophy and was declared legally blind at 15.
Enyart, 32, graduated last spring from UCLA Law School, where she took tests on a laptop with software that magnified the text and read the words into earbuds. But she has not taken the bar exam because the national examiners, who administer the two multiple-choice portions of the California test, have refused to allow the same arrangements.
Full Story: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/01/30/BARA1BPRQF.DTL
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Sunday, January 31, 2010
A blind law student can use computer-assisted reading devices in next month's bar exam, a federal judge has ruled, rejecting the examiners' arguments that the assistance was too generous and might let someone steal the test questions.
U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer of San Francisco ordered the National Conference of Bar Examiners on Friday to accommodate Stephanie Enyart, who was born sighted but suffers from macular degeneration and retinal dystrophy and was declared legally blind at 15.
Enyart, 32, graduated last spring from UCLA Law School, where she took tests on a laptop with software that magnified the text and read the words into earbuds. But she has not taken the bar exam because the national examiners, who administer the two multiple-choice portions of the California test, have refused to allow the same arrangements.
Full Story: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/01/30/BARA1BPRQF.DTL
Monday, June 8, 2009
UNITED AIRLINES SUED FOR DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE
6-4-09
EEOC Says Airline Failed to Provide Reasonable Accommodations for Disabled Workers
SAN FRANCISCO – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today sued Chicago-based global air carrier United Airlines for discriminating against a class of employees with disabilities by failing to provide job transfers to vacant positions, despite their qualifications, as a reasonable accommodation.
Lead class member Joe Boswell worked as an airline mechanic for United at the San Francisco Airport for over a decade before being diagnosed with a brain tumor, causing him to take leave and seek medical treatment. When Boswell returned to work at United, he could not be accommodated in his position as a mechanic, so he applied for a number of vacant positions for which he was qualified.
The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities. Under the statute, reasonable accommodations specifically include reassignment to a vacant position. However, instead of providing such an accommodation to Boswell, the EEOC says United violated the ADA by rejecting him for all the positions he had applied for, even though he was qualified for those jobs. Boswell was eventually placed on extended, involuntary leave by United until he retired late last year.
“The EEOC is focused on eliminating widespread disability discrimination in employment wherever we find it,” said EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru. “Employers in every industry should know that their failure to comply with the ADA’s reasonable accommodation requirement will have legal consequences.”
Boswell said, “It made me feel useless to be rejected for job after job when I knew I was qualified to do the work I was applying for. United made it clear that they didn’t want to deal with me after I became disabled. I wanted to work, but they didn’t care.”
The EEOC says in the litigation that all of the class members shared similar experiences as Boswell: they became disabled during their employment with United, could not be accommodated in their current position, and were rejected by United for a vacant position for which they qualified. Other claimants were food service workers, airplane maintenance workers, ramp workers, flight attendants, and customer service representatives.
“We anticipate that numerous employees at United locations nationwide may have a claim in this systemic case,” said EEOC San Francisco Regional Attorney William Tamayo. “The ADA clearly requires employers to make a reasonable accommodation when an employee can no longer perform the original job because of a disability. This requires placing disabled employees in vacant positions for which they qualify, rather than forcing them to go through an application process similar to an external applicant who never worked at the company.”
The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement (EEOC v. United Airlines, Civil No. 09-2469-PJH). The suit seeks monetary damages on behalf of the affected class of employees, a court order to require the airline to change its policies to comply with the ADA, and ensuring the class members are reassigned to work in vacant jobs for which they are qualified.
EEOC San Francisco District Director Michael Baldonado noted, “The EEOC investigation found that Boswell’s treatment was the rule, not the exception, at United Airlines. Employees with disabilities were placed on long-term leaves of absence and/or terminated despite the fact that they were willing, qualified and able to work. Such actions ignore the language and spirit of the ADA. Employees with disabilities can remain productive members of the work force, especially if employers fully comply with their duty under the law to provide reasonable accommodations.”
According to the company web site, United Airlines has almost 50,000 employees in every U.S. state and in many countries around the world. The air carrier operates air travel hubs in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Denver, Chicago and Washington, D.C. United is one of the largest international carriers based in the United States.
During Fiscal Year 2008, disability discrimination charge filings with the EEOC nationwide rose to 19,453 -- an increase of 10 percent from the prior fiscal year and the highest level in 14 years.The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.
PRESS RELEASE
6-4-09
EEOC Says Airline Failed to Provide Reasonable Accommodations for Disabled Workers
SAN FRANCISCO – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today sued Chicago-based global air carrier United Airlines for discriminating against a class of employees with disabilities by failing to provide job transfers to vacant positions, despite their qualifications, as a reasonable accommodation.
Lead class member Joe Boswell worked as an airline mechanic for United at the San Francisco Airport for over a decade before being diagnosed with a brain tumor, causing him to take leave and seek medical treatment. When Boswell returned to work at United, he could not be accommodated in his position as a mechanic, so he applied for a number of vacant positions for which he was qualified.
The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities. Under the statute, reasonable accommodations specifically include reassignment to a vacant position. However, instead of providing such an accommodation to Boswell, the EEOC says United violated the ADA by rejecting him for all the positions he had applied for, even though he was qualified for those jobs. Boswell was eventually placed on extended, involuntary leave by United until he retired late last year.
“The EEOC is focused on eliminating widespread disability discrimination in employment wherever we find it,” said EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru. “Employers in every industry should know that their failure to comply with the ADA’s reasonable accommodation requirement will have legal consequences.”
Boswell said, “It made me feel useless to be rejected for job after job when I knew I was qualified to do the work I was applying for. United made it clear that they didn’t want to deal with me after I became disabled. I wanted to work, but they didn’t care.”
The EEOC says in the litigation that all of the class members shared similar experiences as Boswell: they became disabled during their employment with United, could not be accommodated in their current position, and were rejected by United for a vacant position for which they qualified. Other claimants were food service workers, airplane maintenance workers, ramp workers, flight attendants, and customer service representatives.
“We anticipate that numerous employees at United locations nationwide may have a claim in this systemic case,” said EEOC San Francisco Regional Attorney William Tamayo. “The ADA clearly requires employers to make a reasonable accommodation when an employee can no longer perform the original job because of a disability. This requires placing disabled employees in vacant positions for which they qualify, rather than forcing them to go through an application process similar to an external applicant who never worked at the company.”
The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement (EEOC v. United Airlines, Civil No. 09-2469-PJH). The suit seeks monetary damages on behalf of the affected class of employees, a court order to require the airline to change its policies to comply with the ADA, and ensuring the class members are reassigned to work in vacant jobs for which they are qualified.
EEOC San Francisco District Director Michael Baldonado noted, “The EEOC investigation found that Boswell’s treatment was the rule, not the exception, at United Airlines. Employees with disabilities were placed on long-term leaves of absence and/or terminated despite the fact that they were willing, qualified and able to work. Such actions ignore the language and spirit of the ADA. Employees with disabilities can remain productive members of the work force, especially if employers fully comply with their duty under the law to provide reasonable accommodations.”
According to the company web site, United Airlines has almost 50,000 employees in every U.S. state and in many countries around the world. The air carrier operates air travel hubs in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Denver, Chicago and Washington, D.C. United is one of the largest international carriers based in the United States.
During Fiscal Year 2008, disability discrimination charge filings with the EEOC nationwide rose to 19,453 -- an increase of 10 percent from the prior fiscal year and the highest level in 14 years.The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)