Patti's Blog - Advocate for Elders, People with Disabilities and Their Families

Dayton Superior Corporation to Pay $50,000 to Settle EEOC Disability Discrimination Lawsuit

Excerpt from: U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (click for full article)

 

Dayton Superior Corporation, a nationwide provider  of concrete and masonry construction products, will pay $50,000 to settle a  disability discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment  Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.

In its lawsuit filed on Sept. 26, 2012 in U.S. District  Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-00227), the  EEOC charged that Dayton Superior Corporation discriminated against Chassity  Brady, a quality control lab technician in its Braselton, Ga., facility, by unlawfully  firing her in August 2011 for taking medication that had been prescribed by her  doctor for her bipolar disorder.  While  at work, Brady suffered an adverse reaction to the prescribed medication and the  employer required her to submit to a drug test.   Although the only substances found in Brady's system were the  medications prescribed to treat her disability, the employer immediately  terminated her after the test results were revealed.  

"The EEOC filed this case because the evidence indicated Ms.  Brady was terminated because her disability required her to take medication,"  said Robert Dawkins, regional attorney for the EEOC's Atlanta District  Office.  "Making employment decisions on  the basis of stereotypical assumptions about disability-based medications is  one of the problems the ADA was designed to combat."

Can You Be Fired for Using Medical Marijuana?

Excerpt from: Lawyers.com (click for full article)

 

In two recent cases, the EEOC settled with employers who had fired workers because of positive drug tests for prescription drugs. But in states where medical marijuana is legal, can employers fire employees who test positive but have prescriptions for the drug?

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), of course, employers are forbidden from discriminating against workers based on their disabilities.

Nor can an employer discriminate against an employee based on its perception – via a drug test for legal prescription drugs or otherwise – that an employee has a disability.

The two recent cases – one in Georgia and the other in Tennessee – involving prescription drug use and disability show very clearly that an employer violates the ADA when it tests employees for legal drugs and then fires them based on those test results.

McCormick & Schmick’s to Pay $47,814 to Settle EEOC Disability Discrimination Lawsuit

Excerpt from: U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (click for full article)

 

McCormick & Schmick's Seafood Restaurant, Inc. will pay $47,814 and provide other relief to settle a disability discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed by the U.S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.

According to the EEOC's suit, Vernon Davis, who has been deaf since childhood and uses American Sign Language and reads lips to communicate, satisfactorily performed his duties as a prep cook at the McCormick & Schmick's National Harbor restaurant in Oxon Hill, Md. Prior to being hired by the defendant, Davis had obtained culinary training and had worked in several other restaurants. The EEOC said that at McCormick & Schmick's, Davis was harassed by a former management official because of his disability, through mockery (e.g. being called "vermin" instead of "Vernon"), and through threatening physical conduct. The EEOC also said that Davis's prep cook duties were removed and that he was transferred to a dishwasher position because of his disability.

After Davis and others complained about Davis being subjected to disability discrimination, the restaurant demoted him to a janitorial-type position and cut his hours because of his disability and in retaliation for the complaints, the EEOC charged. Four months later, McCormick and Schmick's unlawfully fired Davis because of his disability and in retaliation for his complaints, the EEOC alleged in its lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Southern Division, Civil Action No. 8:11-cv-02695.

Working a ‘dream job’ at the SEC

Excerpt from: Washington Post (click for full article)

 

Less than one-tenth of 1 percent of nearly 2.8 million employees are blind, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Since 2001, the number of workers with severe “targeted disabilities” such as deafness, missing extremities or paralysis decreased by 6 percent. Blindness is also a targeted disability, and in recent years the government has increased its number of workers in that category.

Although the EEOC has not set specific hiring goals for those with severe disabilities, a 2010 executive order called for an additional 100,000 workers with general disabilities by 2015.

Some thoughts on retaliation and the ADA

Excerpt from: Understanding the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (click for full article)

 

Preventive tips: 1) this case in so many ways is a recipe for what not to do. First, prior to termination, there should be an interactive process discussing the employee’s medical condition as well as for figuring out whether the employee can perform the essential functions of the job with or without reasonable accommodations; 2) the employer should request additional medical information and/or consult an occupational physician, therapist or other experts in order to determine whether the employee can perform the essential functions of the position with or without reasonable accommodations; 3) the employer should consider offering the employee additional leave unless they can show that such an offering would be an undue hardship or is a situation where the plaintiff is asking for an indeterminate amount of leave. 4) the ADA is an extraordinarily complex law as well as extremely comprehensive, if people, attorneys or others, are not clear or comfortable with the law, they should not be afraid to get help (in fact, the ethical rules for attorneys generally demand that an attorney get assistance in such situations. Nevertheless, I am consistently surprised at how often mistakes seem to be made as a result of being unfamiliar with the ADA); and 5) a company needs to be sure that employees are continually trained by qualified people on the requirements of the ADA.

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION STRATEGIC ENFORCEMENT PLAN FY 2013 - 2016

Excerpt from: U.S. EEOC (click for full article)

 

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC or Commission) Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2012 - 2016 directed the Commission to develop a Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP) that (1) establishes priorities and (2) integrates all components of EEOC's private, public, and federal sector enforcement.¹ The purpose of the SEP is to focus and coordinate the EEOC's programs to have a sustainable impact in reducing and deterring discriminatory practices in the workplace. The Commission approved the Strategic Enforcement Plan for Fiscal Years 2013 - 2016 on December 17, 2012.

Don’t Sign Away Discrimination Claims to Get Severance Pay

Excerpt from: Lawyers.com (click for full article)

 

While it’s clear that employees can always file discrimination charges even if they sign a severance agreement, they often worry that the severance payment will be yanked if they decide to file with the EEOC – as it was in Thompson’s case.

“It can be yanked,” Cohen tells Lawyers.com, “but it’s not likely” – especially if you have a good case against the employer for any type of discrimination. Employers often rely on the fact that employees don’t know their rights or just need the money so much that they will sign anything.

“Most of the time, a well-counseled employer will have someone sign an agreement with a release for every possible claim. In order for that to be enforceable, the employer has to give the employee more than they would be otherwise be entitled to under its severance policy,” says Cohen.

What that means is that if your employer is only offering you the standard severance that the company provides for and nothing extra, it cannot require you to waive your right to file claims in order to get the severance money. If it does, you will have a retaliation claim to add to any other claims you might have against it.

EEOC Settles Disability Discharge Suit Against Scooter Store

Excerpt from: U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (click for full article)

 

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has settled a disability discrimination lawsuit against The Scooter Store, a nationwide, Texas-based retailer, the agency announced today. The terms of the settlement require The Scooter Store to pay money damages to a disabled former employee and to make changes designed to prevent discrimination and retaliation.

According to the EEOC's lawsuit, Case No. 11-04226 (AAR)(VVP), filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, the EEOC alleged that The Scooter Store discriminated against James Sherman, a mobility manager, by failing to grant his request for a reasonable accommodation. Sherman suffers from psoriatic arthritis and needed a temporary leave of absence from work. The EEOC claimed that the Scooter Store denied Mr. Sherman's request and fired him, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA).

By the terms of the consent decree settling the suit, The Scooter Store agreed to pay $99,000 to Mr. Sherman. Further, The Scooter Store agreed to comply with the requirements of the ADA and modify its leave policy. The decree also requires monitoring and training on anti-discrimination law. The decree will last for five years.

EEOC Smacks NC Printer for Pro-Hispanic Discrimination

Excerpt from: Lawyers.com (click for full article)

 

A North Carolina printing company is paying $334,000 to make the EEOC go away after the agency charged it with national-origin discrimination against “non-Hispanic” temporary workers.

The EEOC said PBM Graphics “violated federal law by refusing to place and/or assign non-Hispanic workers to its ‘core group’ of regular temporary workers.”

These cases are a reminder that national origin discrimination can happen to anyone – not just to what have been considered “minority” groups. In the Colorado hotel workers’ case, a Hampton Inn fired a white workers because, its management said, white workers were “indolent.” 

“An employer cannot discharge or refuse to hire an individual based on derogatory stereotypical beliefs about that person’s race or national origin,” said Mary Jo O’Neill, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Phoenix District Office who worked on that case.

Application of Title VII and the ADA to Applicants or Employees Who Experience Domestic or Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking

Excerpt from: U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission  (click for full article)

 

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) prohibits discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion, or national origin, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability.1 Because these federal EEO laws do not prohibit discrimination against applicants or employees who experience domestic or dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking as such,2 potential employment discrimination and retaliation against these individuals may be overlooked. The examples provided in this publication illustrate how Title VII and the ADA may apply to employment situations involving applicants and employees who experience domestic or dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking. However, whether discrimination has actually occurred in a particular instance must be determined through an investigation of the facts alleged. Information on how to file an employment discrimination claim may be found at the end of this document.