Disability News Service, Resources, Diversity, Americans with Disabilities Act; Local and National.

Showing posts with label EEOC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label EEOC. Show all posts

Tuesday, December 5, 2017

AccentCare to Pay $25,000 To Settle EEOC Disability Discrimination Suit for Reasonable Accommodation

Health Care Provider Refused to Grant Employee a Reasonable Accommodation, Federal Agency Charged
DALLAS / Dec. 1, 2017 - AccentCare, Inc., a home healthcare company headquartered in Dallas, has agreed to pay $25,000 and provide other significant relief to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today. The EEOC charged in its suit that AccentCare discriminated against an employee with bipolar disorder.

According to the EEOC's suit, an AccentCare IT analyst informed the company that she has bipolar disorder and requested leave in order to see her health care provider. The EEOC further said that upon learning of the employee's disability and receiving her request for leave, AccentCare fired her within one day, without giving proper consideration to her request.

Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which protects employees from discrimination based on their disabilities and requires employers to make reasonable accommodations to employees' disabilities as long as it does not pose an undue hardship. The EEOC sued in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Civil Action No. 3:15-cv-03157) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

Under the terms of the consent decree settling the case, AccentCare, Inc. will pay $25,000 in monetary relief to the former IT analyst. AccentCare also agreed to post a notice about the settlement, and to provide training for employees on the ADA to include instruction on the specific provisions of the reasonable accommodation process. The training will include an instruction advising managers and supervisors of the potential consequences for violations of the ADA. Additionally, AccentCare has agreed to document complaints of disability discrimination and report to the EEOC.

"It has always been our contention that AccentCare demonstrated a reckless disregard for the federally protected rights of this valuable employee, rather than carefully considering her request for leave to see her doctor," said EEOC Senior Trial Attorney Joel Clark.

Robert A. Canino, regional attorney for the EEOC's Dallas District Office, added, "We would expect that employers in the health care field would be keenly aware of the importance of supporting the medical needs of their employees by allowing reasonable time that may be required for treatment. We are pleased with the resolution of this case."

The EEOC advances opportunity in the workplace by enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. More information is available at www.eeoc.gov. Stay connected with the latest EEOC news by subscribing to our email updates.
SOURCE: EEOC press release

Day & Zimmermann Staffing Will Pay $45,000 To Settle EEOC Disability and Retaliation Suit

Utility Services Company Unlawfully Publicized Worker's EEOC Disability Charge to Co-Workers, Federal Agency Charged
BOSTON - Nov. 30, 2017 - Day & Zimmermann NPS, a Philadelphia-headquartered provider of staffing services to the power industry, will pay $45,000 and furnish extensive injunctive relief to settle a lawsuit alleging retaliation and interference with rights filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced today.

According to the EEOC's suit, an electrician hired by Day & Zimmermann to work during the shutdown of a Waterford, Conn., power plant filed a disability discrimination charge with EEOC under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). After that, the company publicized details of the charge, including the employee's name, union affiliation, and information about the medical restrictions on his ability to work, in a letter to 146 members of his union local. By publicizing the employee's charge in this manner, Day & Zimmermann retaliated against the employee and interfered with the rights of workers and witnesses to communicate freely with the EEOC and to file charges of their own, the EEOC asserts.

The EEOC's lawsuit, Civil Action No. 3:15-cv-1416-VAB, filed in September 2015 in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, was scheduled to go to trial in January, after the court ruled in August that "when an employer disseminates an employee's administrative charge of discrimination to the employee's colleagues, a reasonable factfinder could determine that such conduct constitutes an adverse employment action." A jury, the court concluded, could find that "a retaliatory motive played a part" in the company's decision to publicize the employee's charge. The court further held that a reasonable jury could find that the company's letter "could have the effect of interfering with or intimidating the letter's recipients with respect to communicating with the EEOC about possible disability discrimination by DZNPS."

The three-year consent decree resolving the case, which was approved by the court today, enjoins Day & Zimmermann from future retaliation or interference with ADA-protected rights and prohibits the company from publicizing the identity of individuals who file charges of disability discrimination in the future. In addition, the decree provides for revision of company policies, an extended statute of limitations for certain individuals to file ADA claims with the EEOC, and $45,000 in compensatory damages to the employee who filed the original discrimination charge.

"This decree ensures that Day & Zimmermann will comply with the law," said EEOC New York District Regional Attorney Jeffrey Burstein. "As a national law enforcement agency, the EEOC will vigorously protect the rights of people to file charges with the EEOC and to participate in the agency's investigations without fear of retaliation."

EEOC New York District Director Kevin Berry added, "Conduct by employers that interferes with the right of workers to speak to the EEOC increases the risk that discrimination will go unreported and unremedied. The EEOC will continue to oppose such conduct because it is crucial that employees, whether they are victims of discrimination or witnesses to discriminatory conduct, be able to communicate freely with the EEOC."

Sara Smolik and Rosemary DiSavino were the EEOC's lead trial attorneys for this case.

The EEOC's New York District Office oversees New York, Northern New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine.

The EEOC advances opportunity in the workplace by enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. More information is available at www.eeoc.gov. Stay connected with the latest EEOC news by subscribing to our email updates.
SOURCE: EEOC press release

Wednesday, November 22, 2017

Federal Court Rules in Favor of EEOC in Disability Discrimination Charge against Amsted Rail

Denying Employment Based on Carpal Tunnel Screening Found Unlawful
ST. LOUIS - A federal judge ruled in favor of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on Nov. 16 in its discrimination charge against Amsted Rail Co., Inc., the federal agency announced today. The judge ruled that Amsted, a leading manufacturer of steel castings for the rail industry, violated federal disability law when it disqualified job applicants based on the results of a nerve conduction test for carpal tunnel syndrome rather than conducting an individualized assessment of each applicant's ability to do the job safely.

According to the ruling in EEOC v. Amsted Rail Co., Inc., No. 14-cv-1292-JPG-SCW (S.D. Ill.), the court found that Amsted's practice screened out job applicants based on a small statistical risk that they might develop carpal tunnel syndrome, violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The court also ruled that Amsted violated the ADA when it refused to hire Montrell Ingram because he previously had successful surgery for carpal tunnel syndrome.

In motions filed with the court last year, the EEOC asked the court to rule that Amsted's use of the nerve conduction test was discriminatory as a matter of law, as well as its policy not to hire applicants who had previously had carpal tunnel syndrome surgery. The EEOC argued that Amsted regarded applicants as disabled because it unreasonably perceived them as at risk to develop carpal tunnel syndrome based upon previous surgery for the condition or the results of the nerve conduction test. Amsted argued that its nerve conduction test and previous surgery rule were justified to identify persons with an enhanced risk for the development of carpal tunnel syndrome.

The court rejected the majority of Amsted's arguments and ruled that the company's conduct was unlawful because it discriminated on the basis of disability, finding that the nerve conduction test had little to no value in predicting the likelihood of future injury.

"While Amsted would like to claim it was protecting workers, its practice denied employment opportunities to workers who were ready and able to do the job," said Andrea G. Baran, regional attorney of the EEOC's St. Louis District. "Employment decisions, including hiring decisions, must be based on a person's ability to perform the job, not on stereotypes, assumptions or conjecture. An individualized assessment of the applicant's present ability to safely perform the job duties is required before an employer may screen out an applicant based on medical tests or exams in the hiring process."

The case is pending in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois in Benton, Ill., and will now proceed with determining damages and remedies for the applicants who were harmed by Amsted's discriminatory conduct.

The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. The St. Louis District Office oversees Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and southern Illinois.

The EEOC advances opportunity in the workplace by enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. More information is available at www.eeoc.gov. Stay connected with the latest EEOC news by subscribing to our email updates.
source: EEOC press release

American Airlines and Envoy Air to Pay $9.8 Million to Settle EEOC Disability Suit

Airlines' Policies Discriminated Against Disabled Employees, Federal Agency Charges

Nov. 20, 2017 - American Airlines and Envoy Air will pay $9.8 million in stock, which is worth over $14 million if cashed in today, and provide other significant relief to settle a nationwide class disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today. The EEOC's suit said the airlines unlawfully denied reasonable accommodations to hundreds of employees.

"This matter highlights the critical role of the Americans with Disabilities Act in getting people back to work as quickly as possible," said EEOC Acting Chair Victoria A. Lipnic. "The parties deserve credit for working diligently to bring this matter to resolution."

According to the EEOC's suit, American and Envoy violated federal law by requiring their employees to have no restrictions before they could return to work following a medical leave. Under this policy, if an employee had restrictions, American and Envoy refused to allow them to return to work and failed to determine if there were reasonable accommodations that would allow the employee to return to work with restrictions.

Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits discrimination based on disability and also requires an employer to provide reasonable accommodation to employees with disabilities unless doing so would cause significant difficulty or expense for the employer. If employees with disabilities are not able to do their current job, even with a reasonable accommodation, employers are obligated to look for a reassignment to another position for those employees.

The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Civil Action No. 17-cv-04059-SPL, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process and continued negotiations prior to filing suit. The consent decree resolves the EEOC's lawsuit and several charges of discrimination filed by individuals with the EEOC. The systemic investigation was conducted by the EEOC's Phoenix District Office.

In addition to the $9.8 million in stock, the two-year decree includes injunctions against engaging in any future discrimination or retaliation based on disability, and requires the companies to adopt policies that ensure reasonable accommodations are provided to persons with disabilities. American and Envoy will provide mandatory periodic training on the ADA to employees. The settlement applies to all American and Envoy employees throughout the country.

EEOC Deputy General Counsel James L. Lee said, "We are pleased the parties were able to resolve this important case without resorting to prolonged and expensive litigation, and we are proud of the Commission's long record of protecting people with disabilities from workplace discrimination."

Elizabeth Cadle, district director for the Phoenix office, added, "This settlement demonstrates the need for employers to have good ADA policies. That means policies which consider employers' obligations to provide reassignment without competition as a reasonable accommodation for employees with disabilities who become unable to do their current job even with accommodations."

EEOC Regional Attorney Mary O'Neill added, "This consent decree is the result of productive and thoughtful negotiations with American. We appreciate American and Envoy working with the EEOC to reach a settlement. In addition to providing meaningful monetary relief for hundreds of former 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.aa.com, American Airlines, headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas, is an airline that operates an average of nearly 6,700 flights per day to nearly 350 destinations in more than 50 countries, and employs over 120,000 people.

The EEOC advances opportunity in the workplace by enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. More information is available at www.eeoc.gov. Stay connected with the latest EEOC news by subscribing to our email updates.
source: EEOC press release

Monday, November 20, 2017

Strataforce Settles EEOC Disability Discrimination Lawsuit, Required Unlawful Health Questionnaire

Company Required Applicants to Complete an Unlawful Pre-Offer Health Questionnaire, Federal Agency Charged

Nov. 14, 2017 - Strataforce, a staffing firm with offices in California, Indiana, North Carolina, and South Carolina, agreed to resolve a lawsuit by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging that the company made pre-offer health inquiries of applicants in violation of federal law.

According to EEOC's lawsuit, Strataforce asked applicants to complete an application package that included a detailed medical questionnaire before the company offered the applicant a position or placement. The medical questionnaires asked for sensitive health information, and included numerous disability-related questions. Employers are generally prohibited from making pre-offer medical inquiries and refusing to hire qualified individuals with disabilities by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

EEOC filed suit against Strataforce in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division (EEOC v. Workforce Integration Inc d/b/a Strataforce, Case No. 1:17-cv-4104, S.D. Ind.) on Nov. 6, 2017. The parties reached agreement and filed a joint motion to approve a consent judgment on November 7. The motion was approved by the Court and the Consent Judgment was entered on November 13. Under the Consent Judgment, Strataforce will be required to provide notice to applicants of their rights under the ADA and submit annual compliance reports to the Commission during the Judgment's four-year term.

"Congress recognized that prohibiting pre-offer medical inquiries was necessary to prevent applicants from being subjected to harmful and unfounded stereotypes on the basis of an actual or perceived disability," said EEOC Regional Attorney Kenneth Bird. "As staffing agencies now play a large role in our nation's workforce, eliminating any discrimination in their screening practices is increasingly important to ensuring that workers with disabilities have equal access to work opportunities. Here, EEOC's investigation showed Strataforce has hired many individuals with disabilities, and we are pleased that in the future Strataforce will conduct its hiring processes in compliance with the ADA. I commend Strataforce for entering an early resolution of the case."

Eliminating barriers in recruitment and hiring is one of six national priorities identified by EEOC's Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP). These barriers can include exclusionary policies and practices, restrictive application processes, and the use of screening tools such as pre-employment tests, background checks and medical questionnaires.

The Indianapolis District Office's jurisdiction includes Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, and parts of Ohio. The EEOC is the federal government agency responsible for enforcing federal anti-discrimination laws in the workplace. Further information about EEOC is available on the agency's website at www.eeoc.gov. Stay connected with the latest EEOC news by subscribing to our email updates.
source: EEOC press release 

Friday, November 10, 2017

Understanding Your Employment Rights Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): A Guide for Veterans

Introduction

In recent years, the percentage of veterans who report having service-connected disabilities (i.e., disabilities that were incurred in, or aggravated during, military service)[1] has risen. About twenty-nine percent of recent veterans report having a service-connected disability, as compared to about thirteen percent of all veterans.[2] Common injuries experienced by veterans include missing limbs, spinal cord injuries, burns, post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), hearing loss, traumatic brain injuries, and other impairments. Other veterans leave service due to injuries or conditions that are not considered service-connected.
This Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guide is intended to answer questions you may have about your rights as an injured veteran, now that you have left the service and are returning to a civilian job or seeking a new job. It also explains the kinds of adjustments (called reasonable accommodations) that may help you be successful in the workplace.
1. Are there any laws that protect veterans with disabilities in employment?
Yes. There are several federal laws that provide important protections for veterans with disabilities who are looking for jobs or are already in the workplace. Two of those laws --the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) and Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) - protect veterans from employment discrimination. See Qs&As 6 and 7 for a discussion of laws providing veterans' preference and special hiring for veterans.
USERRA has requirements for reemploying veterans with and without service-connected disabilities and is enforced by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) and the Department of Justice (DOJ). Title I of the ADA, which is enforced by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), prohibits private and state and local government employers with 15 or more employees from discriminating against individuals on the basis of disability.[3] Any veteran with a disability who meets the ADA's definition is covered, regardless of whether the veteran's disability is service-connected.
2. What does USERRA do?
USERRA prohibits employers from discriminating against employees or applicants for employment on the basis of their military status or military obligations. It also protects the reemployment rights of individuals who leave their civilian jobs (whether voluntarily or involuntarily) to serve in the uniformed services, including the U.S. Reserve forces and state, District of Columbia, and territory (e.g., Guam) National Guards.
Under USERRA, employers must make "reasonable efforts" to help a veteran who is returning to employment to become qualified to perform the duties of the position he or she would have held but for military service whether or not the veteran has a service-connected disability. If the veteran has a disability incurred in, or aggravated during, his or her service, the employer must make reasonable efforts to accommodate the disability and return the veteran to the position in which he or she would have been employed if the veteran had not performed military service. If the veteran is not qualified for that position due to the disability, USERRA requires the employer to make reasonable efforts to help qualify the veteran for a job of equivalent seniority, status, and pay, the duties of which the person is qualified to perform or could become qualified to perform. This could include providing training or retraining for the position at no cost to the veteran. See Title 38, United States Code, Chapter 43 - Employment and Reemployment Rights of Members of the Uniformed Services, 38 U.S.C. § 4313; 20 C.F.R. §§ 1002.198, 1002.225 -.226. USERRA applies to all veterans, not just those with service-connected disabilities, and to all employers regardless of size. For more information on the reemployment rights of uniformed service personnel, see DOL's website at www.dol.gov/vets.
3. What protections does the ADA provide?
Title I of the ADA prohibits an employer from treating an applicant or employee unfavorably in all aspects of employment -- including hiring, promotions, job assignments, training, termination, and any other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment -- because he has a disability, a history of having a disability, or because the employer regards him as having a disability. That means, for example, that it is illegal for an employer to refuse to hire a veteran because he has PTSD, because he was previously diagnosed with PTSD, or because the employer assumes he has PTSD. The ADA also limits the medical information employers may obtain and prohibits disability-based harass­ment and retaliation.
Finally, the ADA provides that, absent undue hardship (significant difficulty or expense to the employer), applicants and employees with disabilities are entitled to reasonable accommodation to apply for jobs, to perform their jobs, and to enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment (e.g., access to the parts of an employer's facility available to all employees and access to employer-sponsored training and social events).
Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act applies the same standards of non-discrimination and reasonable accommodation as the ADA to Federal Executive Branch agencies and the United States Postal Service. Documents explaining Title I of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act can be found on EEOC's website at www.eeoc.gov.
4. I was injured during active duty but don't think of myself as "disabled." How do I know if I am protected by the ADA?
You are protected if you meet the ADA's definition of disability and are qualified for the job you want or hold. The ADA defines an "individual with a disability" as a person who (1) has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities; (2) has a record of such an impairment (i.e. was substantially limited in the past, such as prior to undergoing rehabilitation); or (3) is regarded, or treated by an employer, as having such an impairment, even if no substantial limitation exists. You are considered qualified if you are able to meet an employer's requirements for the job, such as education, training, employment experience, skills, or licenses, and are able to perform the job's essential or fundamental duties with or without reasonable accommodation.
As a result of changes to the ADA made by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, it is now much easier for individuals with a wide range of impairments to establish that they are individuals with disabilities and entitled to the ADA's protections. For example, the term "major life activities" includes not only activities such as walking, seeing, hearing, and concentrating, but also the operation of major bodily functions, such as functions of the brain and the neurological system.[4]
Additionally, an impairment need not prevent or severely or significantly restrict your performance of a major life activity to be considered substantially limiting; the determination of whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity must be made without regard to any mitigating measures (e.g., medications or assistive devices, such as prosthetic limbs) that you may use to lessen your impairment's effects; and impairments that are episodic or in remission (e.g., epilepsy or PTSD) are considered disabilities if they would be substantially limiting when active.[5] Some service-connected disabilities, such as deafness, blindness, partially or completely missing limbs, mobility impairments requiring the use of a wheelchair, major depressive disorder, and PTSD, will easily be concluded to be disabilities under the ADA.[6]
5. If I have a military disability rating or a disability rating from the VA, does that mean I am also covered by the ADA?
Yes, you are probably covered. Although the ADA uses different standards than the U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in determining disability, many more service-connected disabilities will also be considered disabilities under the ADA than prior to the ADA Amendments Act. See Q&A 4.
6. Under the ADA, is a private employer required to hire me over other applicants because I have a disability?
Though it is not required to do so, a private employer may decide to give a veteran with a disability a preference in hiring. The ADA prohibits discrimination "on the basis of disability." This means that if you are qualified for a job, an employer cannot refuse to hire you because you have a disability or because you may need a reasonable accommodation to perform the job. Even if you are qualified for a job, an employer may choose another applicant without a disability because that individual is better qualified.
Some laws, however, require private employers to give a preference to veterans with disabilities. For example, the Vietnam Era Veteran's Readjustment Assistance Act (VEVRAA) requires that businesses with a federal contract or subcontract in the amount of $100,000 or more, entered into on or after December 1, 2003, take affirmative action to employ and advance qualified disabled veterans. VEVRAA also requires these businesses to list their employment openings with the appropriate employment service and to give covered veterans priority in referral to such openings.[7]
7. Are there any laws that will give me special consideration if I am looking for a job with the federal government?
Yes. Under the Veterans Preference Act, veterans with and without disabilities are entitled to preference over others in hiring from competitive lists of eligible applicants and may be considered for special noncompetitive appointments for which they are eligible.[8]
Federal agencies also may use specific rules and regulations, called "special hiring authorities," to hire individuals with disabilities outside the normal competitive hiring process, and sometimes may even be required to give preferential treatment to veterans, including disabled veterans, in making hiring decisions.
Here are some of the special hiring authorities that may apply to you if you are looking for a job with the federal government:
  • The Veterans' Recruitment Appointment (VRA) program allows agencies to appoint eligible veterans without competition.
  • The Veterans Employment Opportunity Act (VEOA) can be used when filling permanent, competitive service positions. It allows veterans to apply for jobs that are only open to "status" candidates, which means "current competitive service employees."
  • The Schedule A Appointing Authority, though not specifically for veterans, allows agencies to appoint eligible applicants who have a severe physical, psychological, or intellectual disability.
For more information on veterans' preferences and special hiring authorities, see the "Vet Guide" on the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) website at www.opm.gov/staffingportal/vetguide.asp#intro, "Feds Hire Vets - Veterans' Preference" at www.fedshirevets.gov/job/vetpref/index.aspx, and Special Hiring Authorities for Veterans at www.fedshirevets.gov/job/shav/indexsee also OPM's Disabled Veterans Affirmative Action Program at www.opm.gov/veterans/dvaap.asp.
8. During a job interview, may an employer ask about my amputation, why I am in a wheelchair, or how I sustained any other injury I may have?
No. Even if your disability is obvious, an employer cannot ask questions about when, where, or how you were injured. However, where it seems likely that you will need a reasonable accommodation to do the job, an employer may ask you if an accommodation is needed and, if so, what type. In addition, an employer may ask you to describe or demonstrate how you would perform the job with or without an accommodation. For example, if the job requires that you lift objects weighing up to 50 pounds, the employer can ask whether you will need assistance or ask you to demonstrate how you will perform this task. Similarly, if you voluntarily reveal that you have an injury or illness and an employer reasonably believes that you will need an accommodation, it may ask what accommodation you need to do the job.
9. Do I have to disclose an injury or illness that is not obvious during an interview or indicate on a job application that I have a disability?
No. The ADA does not require you to disclose that you have any medical condition on a job application or during an interview. However, if you will need a reasonable accommodation to participate in the application process, such as more time to take a test or permis­sion to provide oral instead of written responses, you must request it. Additionally, some veterans with service-connected disabilities may choose to disclose that they have medical conditions, such as PTSD or a traumatic brain injury, because of symptoms they experience or because they will need a reasonable accommodation at work. Once an employer makes a job offer, it may ask you questions about your medical conditions, and perhaps even require you to take a medical examination, as long as it requires everyone else in the same job to answer the same questions and/or take the same medical examination before starting work.
10. Some applications ask me to indicate whether I am a "disabled veteran." Is this legal?
Yes, if the information is being requested for affirmative action purposesSee EEOC Enforcement Guidance: Preemployment Disability-Related Questions and Medical Examinations Under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (1995) at www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/preemp.html. An employer may ask applicants to voluntarily self-identify as individuals with disabilities or "disabled veterans" when the employer is: (1) undertaking affirmative action because of a federal, state, or local law (including a veterans' preference law) that requires affirmative action for individuals with disabilities; or (2) voluntarily using the information to benefit individuals with disabilities, including veterans with service-connected disabilities.
If an employer invites you to voluntarily self-identify as a disabled veteran, it must clearly inform you in writing (or orally, if no written questionnaire is used) that: (1) the information is being requested as part of the employer's affirmative action program; (2) providing the information is voluntary; (3) failure to provide it will not subject you to any adverse treatment; and (4) the information will be kept confidential and only used in a way that complies with the ADA.
11. What types of reasonable accommodations may I want to request for the application process or on the job?
The following are examples of types of accommodations that you may need for the application process or while on the job:
  • written materials in accessible formats, such as large print, Braille, or on computer disk
  • extra time to complete a test if you have difficulty concentrating or have a learning disability or traumatic brain injury (TBI)
  • interviews, tests, and training held in accessible locations
  • modified equipment or devices (e.g., assistive technology that would allow you to use a computer if you are blind or to use a telephone if you are deaf or hard of hearing; a glare guard for a computer monitor if you have a TBI; a one-handed keyboard if you are missing an arm or hand)
  • physical modifications to the workplace (e.g., reconfiguring a workspace, including adjusting the height of a desk or shelves if you use a wheelchair)
  • permission to work from home
  • leave for treatment, recuperation, or training related to your disability
  • a modified or part-time work schedule
  • a job coach who could assist you if you initially have some difficulty learning or remembering job tasks
  • modification of supervisory methods, such as having a supervisor break complex assignments into smaller, separate tasks, provide some additional feedback or guidance on a task, or adjust methods of communication (e.g., give written rather than oral instructions for completing certain tasks)
  • reassignment to a vacant position if your disability prevents you from performing the duties of your current position or where any reasonable accommodation in your current position would result in undue hardship (i.e., significant difficulty or expense)
12How do I ask for a reasonable accommodation?
You simply have to indicate -- orally or in writing -- that you need an adjustment or change in the application process or at work for a reason related to a medical condition. For example, if you have a vision loss and cannot read standard print, you would need to inform the employer that you need the application materials in some other format (e.g., large print or on computer disk) or read to you. You do not have to mention the ADA or use the term "reasonable accommodation." Someone acting on your behalf, such as a family member, rehabilitation counselor, health professional, or other representative, also can make the request.
13. What happens after I request a reasonable accommodation?
A request for reasonable accommodation is the first step in an informal interactive process between you and the employer.
The process will involve determining whether you have a disability as defined by the ADA (where this is not obvious or already known) and identifying accommodation solutions. An employer also may ask if you know what accommodation you need that will help you apply for or do the job. There are extensive public and private resources to help identify reasonable accommodations for applicants and employees with particular disabilities. For example, the website for the Job Accommodation Network (JAN) provides a practical guide for individuals with disabilities on requesting and discussing reasonable accommodations and on finding the right job. See JAN's website at www.askjan.org.
14. I am not sure whether I will need a reasonable accommodation. If I don't ask for one before I start working, can I still ask for one later?
Yes. You can request an accommodation at any time during the application process or when you start working even if you did not ask for one when applying for a job or after receiving a job offer. If you are already receiving a reasonable accommodation, you may also request a different or additional accommodation later if your disability and/or the job changes, or if another accommodation becomes available that will help you.
Generally, you should request an accommodation when you know that there is a workplace barrier that is preventing you from competing for or performing a job or having equal access to the benefits of employment. As a practical matter, it is better to request a reasonable accommodation before your job performance suffers.
15. What can I do if I feel that an employer has violated the ADA by not hiring me or providing a reasonable accommodation?
If you believe that your employment rights have been violated on the basis of disability (or for some other discriminatory reason), there are actions you can take:
  • Claims against a private or a state or local government employer:To take formal action, you must file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC. The charge must be filed by mail or in person with the local EEOC office within 180 days from the date of the alleged violation. The 180-day filing deadline is extended to 300 days if a state or local anti-discrimination law also covers the charge.
    The EEOC will send you and the employer a copy of the charge and may ask for responses and supporting information. Before a formal investigation, the EEOC may select the charge for EEOC's mediation program. Mediation is free, confidential, and voluntary for both parties. A charge will only be mediated if both parties agree to participate in the process. Mediation may prevent a time-consuming investigation of the charge.
    If a charge goes to mediation but is unsuccessful or is not selected for mediation, the EEOC investigates the charge to determine if there is "reasonable cause" to believe discrimination has occurred. If reasonable cause is found, the EEOC will then try to resolve the charge with the employer. In some cases, where the charge cannot be resolved, the EEOC will file a court action. If the EEOC finds no discrimination, or if an attempt to resolve the charge fails and the EEOC decides not to file suit, it will issue you a notice of a "right to sue," which will give you 90 days to file a court action. You also can request a notice of a "right to sue" from the EEOC 180 days after the charge first was filed with the EEOC and may then bring suit within 90 days after receiving the notice.
For a detailed description of the process, visit our website at www.eeoc.gov/charge/overview_charge_filing.html.
  • Claims against a federal government agency: If you are a federal employee or applicant and you believe that a federal agency has discriminated against you, you have a right to file a complaint. Each agency is required to post information about how to contact the agency's EEO Office. You can contact an EEO Counselor by calling the office responsible for the agency's EEO complaints program.
    The first step is to contact an EEO Counselor at the agency where you work or where you applied for a job. Generally, you must contact the EEO Counselor within 45 days from the day the discrimination occurred. In most cases the EEO Counselor will give you the choice of participating either in EEO counseling or in an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) program, such as a mediation program.
    If you do not settle the dispute during counseling or through ADR, you can file a formal discrimination complaint against the agency with the agency's EEO Office. You must file within 15 days from the day you receive notice from your EEO Counselor about how to file. Once you have filed a formal complaint, the agency will review the complaint and, if the complaint is not dismissed for procedural reasons (e.g., because it was filed too late), the agency will conduct an investigation. The agency has 180 days from the day you filed your complaint to finish the investigation. When the investigation is finished, the agency will issue a notice giving you two choices: either request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge or ask the agency to issue a decision as to whether the discrimination occurred.
For a detailed description of the federal complaint process, visit our website at www.eeoc.gov/federal/fed_employees/complaint_overview.cfm

Resources

Laws Protecting Veterans with Service-Connected Disabilities

ADA
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)

www.eeoc.gov
1-800-669-4000
1-800-669-6820 (TTY)
U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)
www.ada.gov
1-800-514-0301
1-800-514-0383 (TTY)
USERRA
U.S. Department of Labor (DOL)

www.dol.gov/vets
1-866-4-USA-DOL
1-877-889-5627 (TTY)
VEVRAA
DOL, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP)

http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/regs/statutes/4212.htm
1-800-397-6251
1-877-889-5627 (TTY)

Recruiting and Hiring

National Resource Directory (NRD)
A partnership among the Department of Defense (DoD), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and DOL
www.nationalresourcedirectory.gov
1-800-342-9647
DOL One Stop Career Centers
www.careeronestop.org
1-877-348-0502
1-877-348-0501 (TTY)
Employer Assistance and Recruiting Network (EARN)
www.AskEARN.org
1-855-Ask-EARN (1-855-275-3276)
Occupational Information Network (O*NET) Online
Provides comprehensive occupational descriptions and data for use by job seekers, employers, and others
www.onetcenter.org/
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
www.va.gov
1-800-827-1000
U.S. Office of Personnel Management
www.fedshirevets.gov/
1-202-606-5090

Reasonable Accommodation

EEOC Enforcement Guidance: Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship Under the ADA
www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/accommodation.html
Job Accommodation Network (JAN)
www.askjan.org
1-800-526-7234
1-877-781-9403 (TTY)
DoD Computer/Electronic Accommodations Program (CAP)
www.tricare.mil/cap
1-703-681-8813
1-703-681-3978 (TTY)


[1] See Title 38, United States Code § 101 (defining "service-connected" disabilities of military veterans).
[2] See Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment of Veterans Summary (August 2015) available at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/vet.t08.htm.
[3] The EEOC also is responsible for enforcing federal laws that it make it illegal to discriminate against a job applicant or an employee (including a veteran) because of the person's race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), or genetic information.
[4] 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(i)(1)(i)-(ii).
[5] 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii)-(vii).
[6] 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(iii).
[7] These provisions of VEVRAA are enforced by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) within the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). See www.dol.gov/compliance/laws/comp-vevraa.htm
[8] Some states also grant veterans' preference for state government jobs. To find out if your state has a veterans' preference program, contact your state's labor office.
SOURCE: EEOC publication

Tuesday, November 7, 2017

American Airlines Settles Disability Employment Lawsuit for $10M

Nov. 7, 2017-AP - American Airlines and a subsidiary will pay $9.8 million in stock to settle claims that they failed to help disabled employees return to work.
Federal officials say American and Envoy Air fired or put some workers on unpaid leave instead of making reasonable efforts to reassign them.
The workers' disabilities ranged from cancer to back and knee injuries.
A lawsuit and consent agreement were filed Friday in federal court in Phoenix by the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for 12 named former workers and others in similar circumstances.
The agency says violations of the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act occurred from 2009 until August 2015.
American spokesman Matt Miller said the policies were legacies of carriers that merged with American, which then worked to "harmonize legacy policies" with present standards.

Monday, November 6, 2017

Georgia Hospital Sued by EEOC For Disability Discrimination, Fired After Requesting Leave Due to Medical Condition

Phoebe Putney Hospital Sued by EEOC For Disability Discrimination

Nov. 1, 2017 - Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital, a regional medical center located in Albany, Ga., violated federal disability discrimination law when it fired an employee after she requested leave due to her medical condition, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it filed today.

According to the EEOC's suit, in May 2016, Phoebe Putney discharged Medical Records Analyst Wendy Kelley rather than grant her request for a reasonable accommodation in the form of leave to receive treatment for her medical condition. Kelley was fired within days of requesting two weeks of medical leave to comply with her doctor's restrictions that she not work during that time. Due to her condition, Kelley fainted at the hospital's facility on the way to meet with her supervisor about her request for leave. Instead of rescheduling the meeting, Phoebe Putney denied Kelley's request for leave and terminated her employment.

Such conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:17-CV-00201-WLS) in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, Albany Division after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The EEOC is seeking reinstatement, back pay, front pay, compensatory and punitive damages for Kelley, as well as injunctive relief designed to prevent future discrimination.

"An employer cannot discharge an employee because that employee has an actual or perceived disability or because she sought a reasonable accommodation," said Antonette Sewell, regional attorney for the EEOC's Atlanta District Office. "The employee here sought to exercise her rights under the ADA to receive a reasonable accommodation, but instead of accommodating her, the hospital simply kicked her out the door. Such conduct violates federal law, and the EEOC is here to stand up for the victims of such thoughtless discrimination."

Bernice Williams-Kimbrough, district director of the Atlanta office, said, "The EEOC is committed to stopping workplace disability discrimination in Georgia and across the country. An employee should not have to risk being fired when seeking an accommodation under the ADA or because the employer perceives the employee as disabled."

The EEOC advances opportunity in the workplace by enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. More information is available at www.eeoc.gov. Stay connected with the latest EEOC news by subscribing to our email updates.
source: EEOC press release

Wednesday, November 1, 2017

EEOC Launches Online Services for Inquiries, Appointments and Discrimination Charges

New EEOC Public Portal Allows Online Interactions with the Agency
Nov. 1, 2017 - Today the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) launched an EEOC Public Portal to provide online access to individuals inquiring about discrimination.
"This secure online system makes the EEOC and an individual's charge information available wherever and whenever it is most convenient for that individual," said EEOC Acting Chair Victoria A. Lipnic. "It's a giant leap forward for the EEOC in providing online services."
The EEOC Public Portal allows individuals to submit online initial inquiries and requests for intake interviews with the agency. Initial inquiries and intake interviews are typically the first steps for individuals seeking to file a charge of discrimination with EEOC. In fiscal year 2017, the EEOC responded to over 550,000 calls to the toll-free number and more than 140,600 inquiries in field offices, reflecting the significant public demand for EEOC's services. Handling this volume of contacts through an online system is more efficient for the public and the agency as it reduces the time and expense of paper submissions.
The new system enables individuals to digitally sign and file a charge prepared by the EEOC for them. Once an individual files a charge, he or she can use the EEOC Public Portal to provide and update contact information, agree to mediate the charge, upload documents to his or her charge file, receive documents and messages related to the charge from the agency and check on the status of his or her charge. These features are available for newly filed charges and charges that were filed on or after Jan. 1, 2016 that are in investigation or mediation.
Five EEOC offices (CharlotteChicagoNew OrleansPhoenix and Seattle) piloted the new system for six months. Feedback from the public and the EEOC pilot offices led to improvements in the system for this nationwide launch.
The new system does not permit individuals to file charges of discrimination online that have not been prepared by the EEOC or to file complaints of discrimination against federal agencies.
In the next few weeks, the EEOC will also provide online access to charging parties for whom the agency has an email address, who have pending charges that are currently in investigation or mediation and were filed as of Jan. 1, 2016.
Individuals who do not have online access can call 1-800-669-4000 to get basic information about how to submit an inquiry to their local EEOC office.
The EEOC advances opportunity in the workplace by enforcing federal laws prohibiting employ­ment discrimination. More information is available at www.eeoc.gov.  Stay connected with the latest EEOC news by subscribing to our email updates.
Source: EEOC press release

Monday, October 30, 2017

Kaiser Aluminum Settles EEOC Disability Discrimination Lawsuit with $175,000 and Job Offer

Oct. 24, 2017 - Kaiser Aluminum Corporation, the leading producer of fabricated aluminum products in the United States, will pay $175,000 and reinstate its hiring offer to a qualified production worker 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 suit, Kaiser withdrew its job offer for production work at its Trentwood mill in Spokane after Donald McMurray's medical records showed a workplace injury from over 10 years ago. The EEOC found that McMurray, with a long history of construction work at the time, was a well-qualified candidate fully capable of meeting the job's physical demands.

"All I ever wanted was for Kaiser to let me prove that I was physically able to do the job," said McMurray. "My medical history didn't paint the true picture of who I am today and what I can do. But that's all behind me, and I am excited that my future is with an industry leader like Kaiser."

Failing to hire a person based on a record of a prior disability or a perceived disability violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The EEOC filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington (EEOC v. Kaiser Aluminum Washington, LLC, 2:16-cv-00343-SAB) after an investigation by EEOC investigator Toni Haley and after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

"EEOC and Kaiser worked hard together to resolve a tough case and further the objectives of the ADA," said EEOC Senior Trial Attorney Teri Healy. "We are very pleased with the outcome of this lawsuit and appreciate Kaiser's willingness to work with the EEOC to resolve this matter and its commitment to its obligations under the law."

Seattle EEOC Field Director Nancy Sienko added, "Mr. McMurray will be a great addition to the Kaiser team. His reinstatement and Kaiser's implementation of new hiring procedures are a win-win for all involved. Eliminating barriers in recruitment and hiring and enforcing the ADA are high priorities for the EEOC."

With headquarters in Foothill Ranch, Calif., Kaiser employs more than 2,000 people at its 12 facilities in North America, and, according to www.kaiseraluminum.org , is a leading producer of fabricated aluminum products, with reported net sales of $1.4 billion and value-added revenue of $790 million in 2015.

The EEOC advances opportunity in the workplace by enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. More information is available at www.eeoc.gov. Stay connected with the latest EEOC news by subscribing to our email updates.
source: EEOC press release

Monday, October 16, 2017

Jones Lang LaSalle Americas Sued by EEOC for Disability Discrimination

Commercial Real Estate Firm Rescinded Job Offer After Applicant Disclosed Her PTSD and Requested an Accommodation, Federal Agency Charges
Oct. 11, 2017 - The Atlanta office of a commercial real estate and investment management company headquartered in Chicago violated federal law by discriminating against a job applicant because of her disability, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it filed today.
According to the EEOC's lawsuit, Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc. (JLL), violated federal law when it rescinded a job offer to a development and asset strategy production support analyst position in April 2016 after the applicant disclosed her diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and requested to work remotely once per week to attend medical appointments related to her disability. Prior to learning of her disability, JLL informed the applicant numerous times during its interview process that it offered flexible work arrangements and schedules. However, once it learned that the applicant suffered from PTSD and sought to work remotely one day per week as an accommodation for her disability, JLL quickly rescinded its job offer, the EEOC said. The applicant withdrew her accommodation request after being notified that the offer had been rescinded, but JLL refused to reconsider its decision.
Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The EEOC filed suit (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:17-CV-4017-ELR-JSA) in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settle­ment through its conciliation process. The federal agency seeks back pay, and compensatory and punitive damages for the applicant, as well as injunctive relief designed to prevent such discrimination in the future.
"An employer cannot refuse to hire an employee because that person has a disability or because she sought a reasonable accommodation," said Bernice Williams-Kimbrough, director of the EEOC's Atlanta District Office. "The employee here disclosed her disability, but instead of accommodating her, the employer rescinded its job offer. This is unlawful, and the EEOC is here to stand up for the victims of such prac­tices."
Antonette Sewell, regional attorney for the Atlanta District Office, added, "The disclosure of a disability by an employee or applicant requires a certain level of trust that the employer will not use it against her. Unfortunately, that is precisely what happened in this case. This is why the law protects people with disabilities who exercise their legal rights." 
Eliminating barriers in recruitment and hiring, especially class-based recruitment and hiring practices that discriminate against racial, ethnic and religious groups, older workers, women, and people with disabilities, is one of six national priorities identified by the Commission's Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP).
The Atlanta District Office of the EEOC oversees Georgia and parts of South Carolina.
The EEOC advances opportunity in the workplace by enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. More information is available at www.eeoc.gov.  Stay connected with the latest EEOC news by subscribing to our email updates.
source: press release

Tuesday, October 10, 2017

UPS to Pay $2 Million to Resolve Nationwide EEOC Disability Discrimination Claims of Employees

Shipping Giant's Rigid Leave Policies Forced Out Employees Who Needed Accommodations, Federal Agency Charged
Oct. 8, 2017 - CHICAGO - International shipping giant United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS) has agreed to pay $2 million to nearly 90 current and former UPS employees to resolve a nationwide disability discrimination lawsuit filed in 2009 by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) as well as to conciliate related administrative charges, the agency announced today.

The EEOC charged that UPS violated federal law failing to provide UPS employees with disabilities reasonable accommodations that would enable them to perform their job duties. The EEOC further alleged that UPS maintained an inflexible leave policy, whereby the company fired disabled employees automatically when they reached 12 months of leave, without engaging in the interactive process required by law.

Such alleged conduct violates Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 09-cv-5291) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

In addition to providing $2 million in monetary relief, UPS has also agreed to update its policies on reasonable accommodation, improve its implementation of those policies, and conduct training for those who administer the company's disability accommodation processes. Furthermore, the company has agreed to provide the EEOC periodic reports on the status of every accommodation request for the next three years to ensure the efficacy of its procedures.

"The ADA requires companies to make a real effort to work individually with their employees with disabilities to provide them with the necessary and reasonable accommodations that will allow them to do their jobs," said Greg Gochanour, regional attorney of the EEOC's Chicago District Office. "As a result of this lawsuit, UPS now has practices in place to better ensure that this happens."

Julianne Bowman, the EEOC's Chicago District director, added, "Having a multiple-month leave policy alone does not guarantee compliance with the ADA. Such a policy must also include the flexibility to work with employees with disabilities who may simply require a reasonable accommodation to return to work. UPS has now made changes which will allow more people to keep their jobs."

According to company information, Atlanta-based UPS has over 434,000 employees and had revenues of $61 billion in 2016.

The EEOC's Chicago District Office is responsible for processing charges of employment discrimination, administrative enforcement, and the conduct of agency litigation in Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa and North and South Dakota, with Area Offices in Milwaukee and Minneapolis.

The EEOC advances opportunity in the workplace by enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. More information is available at www.eeoc.gov. Stay connected with the latest EEOC news by subscribing to our email updates.
Source: EEOC press release

Thursday, October 5, 2017

EEOC Sues Chicago Area Kia Dealership For Sexual Orientation and Disability Discrimination

Car Dealership Owner Subjected Employee to Constant Harassment for Being Gay and Having Crohn's Disease, Federal Agency Charges
CHICAGO - Chicago car dealership Evergreen Kia violated civil rights law by subjecting an employee to harassment because of his sexual orientation and disability, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed on October 2, 2017.
In its lawsuit, the EEOC alleges that the owner of Evergreen Kia harassed a car salesperson for suffering from Crohn's disease and for being gay. The agency said the owner often used homophobic slurs when talking to and about the salesperson, made offensive jokes about gays, and made offensive comments about his disability.
Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disability Act of 1991 (ADA). Title VII prohibits discrimination because of sex (including sexual orientation, gender identity, and pregnancy), and the ADA prohibits disability discrimination. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The case, EEOC v Evergreen Motors, dba Evergreen Kia, Civil Action No. 17-cv-07084, was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and was assigned to U.S. District Judge Blakey. The EEOC's lawsuit seeks both monetary and injunctive relief. The government's litigation effort will be led by Trial Attorneys Miles Shultz and Laurie Elkin and EEOC Supervisory Trial Attorney Diane Smason.
According to Julianne Bowman, the EEOC's district director in Chicago, the EEOC's pre-suit administrative investigation revealed that Evergreen Kia subjected the employee to sex and disability harassment. She said among other examples of verbal and physical conduct, the owner often said the salesperson's sexual orientation caused his Crohn's disease.
"This employer's conduct violated two major federal disability laws," said Bowman. "No employee should be forced to work in conditions experienced by this salesperson."
Gregory Gochanour, EEOC's regional attorney in Chicago, added, "Employers must be mindful that sex harassment includes harassment because of an employee's sexual orientation. The harassment he faced - and by the company's owner, no less - is unacceptable and unlawful. The EEOC will vigorously enforce federal anti-discrimination law to ensure that employees are not faced with harassment because of their orientation or their disability, and that their employers are held accountable."
The EEOC's Chicago District Office is responsible for processing charges of discrimination, administrative enforcement and the conduct of agency litigation in Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa and North and South Dakota, with Area Offices in Milwaukee and Minneapolis.
The EEOC advances opportunity in the workplace by enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. More information is available at www.eeoc.gov. Stay connected with the latest EEOC news by subscribing to our email updates.
Source: EEOC press release

Feds Sue Home Depot For Disability Discrimination of Employee

Peru, Ill., Store Fired Employee Because of Her Irritable Bowel Syndrome and Fibromyalgia in Violation of ADA, Federal Agency Charges
Sept. 3, 2017 - Home Depot failed to accommodate and then fired an employee who had a disability-related emergency at its Peru, Ill., store, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it filed on Sept. 28.
According to the EEOC's lawsuit, the large national home improvement retailer violated federal law by firing April Stevenson, an employee with irritable bowel syndrome and fibromyalgia, rather than allowing her to take a short break to care for herself.
The EEOC brought the suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits disability discrimination in employment, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The case (EEOC v. The Home Depot / Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., Civil Action No. 17-cv-06990) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Robert W. Gettleman. The EEOC is seeking full make-whole relief, including back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, and non-monetary measures to correct Home Depot's practices going forward.
"Our investigation revealed that Home Depot fired Ms. Stevenson after she had a medical emergency related to her disabilities that required prompt attention," said EEOC Chicago District Director Julianne Bowman. "Home Depot failed to provide her adequate means to attend to her disability, then fired her for minor policy infractions that were caused only by Home Depot's failure to accommodate her."
EEOC Chicago District Regional Attorney Greg Gochanour said, "The ADA requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to people with disabilities. Here, Ms. Stevenson simply needed a short break to care for herself and then return to work - an accommodation that Home Depot easily could have provided."
Home Depot's corporate headquarters are in Georgia.
The EEOC's Chicago District Office is responsible for processing charges of employment discrimination, administrative enforcement, and the conduct of agency litigation in Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa and North and South Dakota, with Area Offices in Milwaukee and Minneapolis.
The EEOC advances opportunity in the workplace by enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. More information is available at www.eeoc.gov. Stay connected with the latest EEOC news by subscribing to our email updates.
Source: EEOC press release