Tag: Americans with Disabilities Act

EEOC Unveils Final Rule Implementing Pregnant Workers Fairness Act PWFA

Go-To Guide:
  • Effective June 18, employers covered by the Pregnancy Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) are required to offer reasonable workplace accommodations to workers who are pregnant or have a condition related to pregnancy or childbirth.
  • PWFA applies to covered entities, which include public and private employers with 15 or more employees, unions, employment agencies, and the federal government.
  • A preliminary injunction was entered on June 17, which “postpones the effective date of the Final Rule’s requirement that covered entities provide accommodation for purely elective abortions of employees that are not necessary to treat a medical condition related to pregnancy” for the states of Louisiana and Mississippi.
  • Covered employers should review the requirements of the PWFA to ensure that their workplace policies and procedures allow for the requisite accommodations under the Act and follow current challenges to accommodations regarding elective abortions under the law.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) final rule implementing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) went into effect June 18, 2024, but not without legal challenge.

The final rule, covered in a previous GT Alert, requires employers to offer reasonable workplace accommodations to workers who are pregnant or have a condition related to pregnancy or childbirth. The rule includes an exception for employers if the requested accommodation would cause the business an undue hardship.

However, the requirement of a workplace accommodation for “purely elective abortions” has been enjoined from implementation and enforcement in the states of Louisiana and Mississippi and against four Catholic organizations. On June 17, 2024, Judge David C. Joseph in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana ruled that the EEOC overstepped its authority by requiring workplace accommodations for “purely elective abortions.”

The motions for preliminary injunction, filed by the states of Louisiana and Mississippi, as well as four entities affiliated with the Catholic Church, sought injunctive relief to the extent that the PWFA requires employers to accommodate purely elective abortions of employees. The court rejected the EEOC argument “that Congress could reasonably be understood to have granted [it] the authority to interpret the scope of the PWFA in a way that imposes a nationwide mandate on both public and private employers – irrespective of applicable abortion-related state laws enacted in the wake of Dobbs – to provide workplace accommodation for the elective abortions of employees.”

Based on its analysis, the court entered a preliminary injunction which “postpones the effective date of the Final Rule’s requirement that covered entities provide accommodation for the elective abortions of employees that are not necessary to treat a medical condition related to pregnancy” for the states of Louisiana and Mississippi and any agency thereof, any covered entity under the final rule with respect to all employees whose primary duty station is located in Louisiana or Mississippi, and the entities affiliated with the Catholic Church that sought the court’s involvement.1

What should employers know to ensure compliance with the PWFA, given the limited injunctive relief issued? Below is a summary of the law and considerations for implementing the rule, which is now effective.

Application

  • The PWFA applies to employees, which include applicants and former employees where relevant based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978.
  • The PWFA applies to covered entities, which include public and private employers with 15 or more employees, unions, employment agencies, and the federal government.
  • The states of Louisiana and Mississippi; employers located in Louisiana and Mississippi and with employees whose primary duty station is located within the states; and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Society of the Roman Catholic Church of the Diocese of Lake Charles, the Society of the Roman Catholic Church of the Diocese of Lafayette, and the Catholic University of America are not required to provide accommodations for the elective abortions of employees that are not necessary to treat a medical condition related to the pregnancy.

What Is Considered a ‘Known Limitation’?

  • A limitation is “known” to a covered entity if the employee, or the employee’s representative, has communicated the limitation to the covered entity.
  • The physical or mental condition may be a modest or minor and/or episodic impediment or problem.
  • An employee affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions that had a need or a problem related to maintaining their health or the health of the pregnancy. “Pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” includes uncomplicated pregnancies, vaginal deliveries or cesarian sections, miscarriage, postpartum depression, edema, placenta previa, and lactation.
  • An employee affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions who sought health care related to pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition itself.
  • There is possible overlap between the PWFA and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) because in these situations, the qualified employee may be entitled to an accommodation under either statute, as the protections of both may apply.

What Is an ‘Undue Hardship’?

  • An employer or covered entity does not need to provide a reasonable accommodation if it causes an undue hardship, meaning significant difficulty or expense, to the employer.

The PWFA Prohibits the Following Conduct by Covered Employers

  • Failure to make a reasonable accommodation for the known limitations of an employee or applicant, unless the accommodation would cause an undue hardship;
  • Requiring an employee to accept an accommodation other than a reasonable accommodation arrived at through the interactive process;
  • Denying a job or other employment opportunities to a qualified employee or applicant based on the person’s need for a reasonable accommodation;
  • Requiring an employee to take leave if another reasonable accommodation can be provided that would let the employee keep working;
  • Punishing or retaliating against an employee or applicant for requesting or using a reasonable accommodation for a known limitation under the PWFA, reporting or opposing unlawful discrimination under the PWFA, or participating in a PWFA proceeding (such as an investigation); and/or
  • Coercing individuals who are exercising their rights or helping others exercise their rights under the PWFA.

Non-Exhaustive List Of Examples of ‘Reasonable Accommodations’

  • Additional, longer, or more flexible breaks to drink water, eat, rest, or use the restroom;
  • Changing food or drink policies to allow for a water bottle or food;
  • Changing equipment, devices, or workstations, such as providing a stool to sit on, or a way to do work while standing;
  • Changing a uniform or dress code or providing safety equipment that fits;
  • Changing a work schedule, such as having shorter hours, part-time work, or a later start time;
  • Telework;
  • Temporary reassignment;
  • Temporary suspension of one or more essential functions of a job;
  • Leave for health care appointments;
  • Light duty or help with lifting or other manual labor; or
  • Leave to recover from childbirth or other medical conditions related to pregnancy or childbirth.

Employer Training

  • Employers should consider training supervisors on how to respond to requests for accommodation.
  • Unlike requests for accommodation under the ADA, an accommodation pursuant to the PWFA may include a temporary suspension of essential job functions for qualified individuals (barring undue hardship to the employer).
  • Employees do not need to use specific words to request an accommodation to begin the interactive process.
  • Employers may not require that the employee seeking an accommodation be examined by a health care provider selected by the employer.
1 Further efforts to enjoin the implementation of the Rule were thwarted when the U.S. District Court for the District of Arkansas denied a motion for injunctive relief filed by a group of Republican state attorneys general on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the rule.
©2024 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.
For more on the PWFA, visit the NLR Labor Employment section.

Payday: Terminated Employee Awarded $78,000 in EEOC Settlement

Employees returning to work following a hospitalization or illness can present legally nuanced issues, particularly if an employer is considering terminating an employee in close proximity to such a leave. A recent case settled by a company with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) highlights some of the legal risks that can come into play.

According to an EEOC press release: “The EEOC charged in [a lawsuit] that, in February 2022, [a company] fired a long-tenured receptionist, despite having recognized the 78-year-old employee as one of its employees of the year in January 2022. The receptionist’s termination came shortly after a brief hospitalization. The EEOC alleged that upon the receptionist’s return to work, [the company’s] general manager asked her how long she planned to continue to work, whether she needed to work, and whether she would prefer to spend her time traveling and seeing family instead of working.

Although the receptionist expressed her desire to continue working, and despite having never previously raised substantial performance concerns to the receptionist, the general manager told the receptionist that [the company] had lost confidence in her ability to work, citing her recent hospitalization. The receptionist was fired the next day and replaced by substantially younger employees.”

The EEOC alleged that these actions violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), noting the alleged statements about “losing confidence” in the employee due to a hospitalization could be viewed as disability discrimination (the ADA defines “disability” very broadly), and the fact the employee was over the age of 40 (i.e., in the protected age group) and replaced with a younger employee could give rise to an inference of age discrimination under the ADEA.

The company elected to settle the allegations. As part of the settlement, the company agreed to pay $78,000 to the terminated employee. In addition, it entered into a two-year consent decree that also requires it to “revise its ADEA and ADA policies, post a notice in the workplace informing employees of the settlement, and train all employees and supervisors on their rights and responsibilities under both the ADEA and the ADA. Moreover, the company agreed to provide the EEOC with periodic reports regarding any future complaints of age or disability discrimination including a description of each employee’s allegations and the company’s response.”

Accordingly, this case serves as an important reminder that employee terminations should be carefully evaluated with respect to legal risks under various employment laws. Vetting such risks on the front end may mitigate pain on the back end.

© 2024 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

Out with the Old? Not So Fast! A Quick Review of 2023 Highlights

2023 has brought many updates and changes to the legal landscape. Our blog posts have covered many of them, but you may not remember (or care to remember) them. Before moving on to 2024, let’s take a moment to review our top five blog posts from the year and the key takeaways from each.

VAX REQUIREMENT SACKED IN TN: MEDICARE PROVIDERS LOSE EXEMPTION FROM COVID-19 LAWS

Our most read blog of 2023 covered the federal COVID-19 vaccination requirement that applied to certain healthcare employers, which was lifted effective August 4, 2023. (Yes, in 2023 we were still talking about COVID-19). However, keep in mind that state laws may still apply. For example, Tennessee law generally prohibits employers from requiring employee vaccination, with an exception for entities subject to valid and enforceable Medicare or Medicaid requirements to the contrary (such as the federal vaccine requirement). However, now that the federal vaccine requirement is gone, there is no exception for these Medicare or Medicaid providers, and they are likely fully subject to Tennessee’s prohibition.

INTERPRETATION OF AN INTERPRETER REQUEST? 11TH CIRCUIT WEIGHS IN ON ACCOMMODATION OF DEAF EMPLOYEE

In this blog post, we covered a recent Eleventh Circuit case in which the court addressed ADA reasonable accommodation requests . The employee requested an accommodation, and the employer did not grant it—but the employee continued to work. Did the employee have a “failure to accommodate” claim? The Eleventh Circuit said yes, potentially. The court clarified that an employee still must suffer some harm—here, he needed to show that the failure to accommodate adversely impacted his hiring, firing, compensation, training, or other terms, conditions, and privileges of his employment. So, when you are considering an employee’s accommodation request, think about whether not granting it (or not providing any accommodation) could negatively impact the employee’s compensation, safety, training, or other aspects of the job. Always remember to engage in the interactive process with the employee to see if you can land on an agreeable accommodation.

POSTER ROLLERCOASTER: DOL CHANGES FLSA NOTICE REQUIRED AT WORKPLACES

If your business is subject to the FLSA (and almost everyone is), you probably know that you must provide an FLSA poster in your workplace. In this blog post, we reported that there is an updated FLSA “Employee Rights” poster that includes a “PUMP AT WORK” section, required under the Provide Urgent Material Protections (PUMP) for Nursing Mothers Act (more information on the PUMP Act here).

HOLIDAY ROAD! DOL WEIGHS IN ON TRACKING FMLA TIME AGAINST HOLIDAYS

In this now-timely blog post from June 2023, we discussed new guidance on tracking FMLA time during holidays. The DOL released Opinion Letter FMLA2023-2-A: Whether Holidays Count Against an Employee’s FMLA Leave Entitlement and Determination of the Amount of Leave. When employees take FMLA leave intermittently (e.g., an hour at a time, a reduced work schedule, etc.), their 12-week FMLA leave entitlement is reduced in proportion to the employee’s actual workweek. For example, if an employee who works 40 hours per week takes 8 hours of FMLA leave in a week, the employee has used one-fifth of a week of FMLA leave. However, if the same employee takes off 8 hours during a week that includes a holiday (and is therefore a 32-hour week), has the employee used one-fourth of a week of FMLA leave? Not surprisingly, the DOL said no. The one day off is still only one-fifth of a regular week. So, the employee has still only used one-fifth of a week of FMLA leave. Review the blog post for options to instead track leave by the hour, which could make things easier.

OT ON THE QT? BAMA’S TAX EXEMPTION FOR OVERTIME

Alabama interestingly passed a law, effective January 1, 2024, that exempts employees’ overtime pay from the 5% Alabama income tax. In this blog post, we discussed the new exemption. It is an effort to incentivize hourly employees to work overtime, especially in light of recent staffing shortages and shift coverage issues. The bill currently places no cap on how much overtime pay is eligible for the exemption, but it allows the Legislature to extend and/or revise the exemption during the Spring 2025 regular session. If you have employees in Alabama, be sure to contact your payroll department or vendor to ensure compliance with this exemption.

As always, consult your legal counsel with any questions about these topics or other legal issues. See you in 2024!

© 2023 Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP
For more news on 2023 Legal Landscape Updates, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

U.S. Supreme Court Vacates, Dismisses as Moot Decision Holding ADA ‘Tester’ Has Standing to Sue

The U.S. Supreme Court vacated a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit holding a self-appointed “tester” has standing to sue under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer, No. 22-429. However, the Court declined to address the merits of whether the tester had a sufficient concrete and particularized injury to establish standing, holding the case had become moot and leaving in place a deep circuit split on the standing issue.

Reservation Rule; Title III

Deborah Laufer had sued Acheson Hotels for alleged violation of the Reservation Rule, a Department of Justice regulation requiring places of lodging to identify and describe accessible features in the hotels and guest rooms offered through their reservations service. The information must have enough details to allow individuals with disabilities to determine whether a given hotel or guest room meets their accessibility needs.

Title III of the ADA requires hotels to make reasonable modifications to reservations policies, practices, or procedures when necessary to ensure that individuals with disabilities can reserve accessible hotel rooms with the same efficiency, immediacy, and convenience as those who do not need accessible guest rooms.

Case of Self-Appointed Tester

As a self-appointed tester, Laufer has sued more than 600 hotels by searching the internet for hotel websites and finding those that lack such accessibility information. Although Laufer has no intention of accessing the hotels she sued, she claims to enforce the law on behalf of other disabled persons.

In response to Laufer’s suits, the hotels argued Laufer lacks standing to bring these lawsuits. Allowing Laufer and other self-appointed testers to sue thousands of hotels across the United States on behalf of every disabled person in the country simply by visiting their websites would cause a flood of litigation from other testers, the hotels warned.

The First Circuit joined the Fourth and Eleventh Circuits to hold that Laufer has standing. In contrast, the Second, Fifth, and Tenth Circuits have held that she lacks standing.

Dismissal Requested

After Acheson Hotels had submitted its merits brief to the Court, but before oral argument, another court sanctioned one of Laufer’s attorneys for misconduct related to some of Laufer’s ADA cases for repeatedly demanding $10,000 in attorneys’ fees after filing boilerplate complaints. Laufer dismissed her lawsuit with prejudice, ostensibly because of that sanction.

Laufer then urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the case on the ground of mootness, arguing “mootness is easy and standing is hard,” so the Court should “refrain from resolving a difficult question in a case that is otherwise over.” Acheson Hotels urged the Court to decide the standing issue, arguing “the standing issue might not come back anytime soon. Acheson Hotels argued, the Court recounted, “While Laufer has disavowed the intention to file any more ADA tester suits, others will file in the circuits that sided with her, and hotels will settle, regarding it as pointless to challenge circuit precedent.” It continued, “‘Why would any hotel take a case this far,’ Acheson asks, ‘if the respondent can evade our review by abandoning a claim rather than risking a loss?’”

Dismissed as Moot

In an 8-1 opinion by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the Court dismissed the case as moot.

The Court explained, “We are sensitive to Acheson’s concern about litigants manipulating the jurisdiction of this Court. We are not convinced, however, that Laufer abandoned her case in an effort to evade our review.” It continued, “She voluntarily dismissed her pending ADA cases after a lower court sanctioned her lawyer. She represented to this Court that she will not file any others.” Although, the Court said, “Laufer’s case against Acheson is moot, and we dismiss it on that ground, … [w]e emphasize, however, that we might exercise our discretion differently in a future case.”

The Court also vacated the First Circuit’s decision under its practice of “Munsingware vacatur,” meaning the issue is once again open in that circuit.

Dissent

Justice Clarence Thomas filed a lone dissent. He would have reached the standing issue, reasoning “whether Laufer had standing the day she filed her suit is logically antecedent to whether her later actions mooted the case.” Moreover, he continued, “the circumstances strongly suggest strategic behavior on Laufer’s part.” In addition, he wrote, “Laufer’s logic is … that she dismissed her claim—and the Court should no longer address whether she had standing—because an attorney she hired in an entirely different case engaged in misconduct.” According to Justice Thomas, he “would not reward Laufer’s transparent tactic for evading our review.”

Justice Thomas then explained he would have held that Laufer lacked standing. He reasoned, assuming the Reservation Rule creates a right to accessibility information, “Laufer asserts no violation of her own rights with regard to that information.” He continued, “Acheson Hotels’ failure to provide accessibility information on its website is nothing to Laufer, because she disclaimed any intent to visit the hotel.”

Concurrence

In a lone concurrence, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson explained that, although she agreed that the Court followed its “Munsingware vacatur” precedent, she would instead require a party to show equitable entitlement to such relief.

Takeaway

After Acheson, testers generally lack standing to sue for alleged violation of the Reservation Rule in the Second, Fifth, and Tenth Circuits and have such standing in the Fourth and Eleventh Circuits. The issue is once again open in the First Circuit and remains open in the other circuits. The Supreme Court likely will be called upon again to resolve the circuit split.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2023
For more news on Supreme Court ADA Decisions, visit the NLR Litigation / Trial Practice section.

EEOC Takes Action to Address Mental Health Discrimination in the Workplace

Employers must take notice that the United State Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is cracking down on companies that discriminate against workers because they have a mental health condition. Mental health conditions, such as major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia, substantially limit brain function. The EEOC determined these disorders constitute disabilities under the American with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The EEOC has significantly increased charges against employers for alleged ADA violations premised upon mental health issues.

In September, the EEOC released its Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP). A review of the SEP reveals that the EEOC will focus on harassment, retaliation, job segregation, labor trafficking, discriminatory pay, disparate working conditions, and other policies and practices that impact particularly vulnerable workers and persons from underserved communities, including workers with mental health related disabilities.

Hence, employers must be extremely careful when dealing with employees or prospective employees who suffer from mental health conditions.

Under the ADA and other nondiscrimination laws, employers must provide “reasonable accommodations” to qualified employees with disabilities. These accommodations are adjustments to the workplace that allow these employees to perform their job duties. These accommodations are usually not costly and can be beneficial in allowing employees to return to work, avoiding productivity losses, and promoting the recruitment and retention of qualified employees.

However, not all employees with mental health conditions require accommodations to perform their job duties. For those who do, accommodations should be individualized and developed with the input of the employee. Below is a list of examples of accommodations that have helped employees with mental health conditions to better perform their job duties. These are not all possible accommodations but provide a starting point to help employers promote an inclusive and supportive work environment. These include:

  • Flexible workplace arrangements
  • Scheduling adjustments
  • Sick leave or flexible use of vacation time
  • Individualized breaks
  • Modification of non-essential job duties
  • Additional training or support
  • Positive reinforcement and flexible supervision
  • Accommodations to the work environment, equipment, and technology
  • Regular meetings between employees and supervisors to discuss workplace issues.

It is important for all employees to be aware of their rights and provide relevant training to co-workers and supervisors. Effective implementation of these accommodations will help create a more inclusive work environment and benefit both employees and employers.

COPYRIGHT © 2023, STARK & STARK
For more news on Mental Health Discrimination in the Workplace, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

Supreme Court Says Case Over ADA ‘Tester’ Standing Is Moot, But Issue is Still Alive

On December 5, 2023, the Supreme Court of the United States vacated a case over whether a self-proclaimed “tester” had standing to bring Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) claims against a hotel that she did not plan to visit, finding the case was moot without addressing the highly-anticipated standing issue.

Quick Hits

The Supreme Court vacated an ADA case against a hotel by a plaintiff who did not intend to stay at the hotel as moot despite the hopes of the business community that it would reduce the overwhelming number of ADA lawsuits.
The decision did not address whether such a ‘tester’ plaintiff has standing under the ADA except to say the issue is still alive and without providing any indication for how the Supreme Court or any other court will resolve the tester standing issue going forward.
A concurring opinion by Justice Thomas suggested that the plaintiff lacked standing because the only injury she suffered was so-called “informational injury” that is not protected by the ADA.
The Supreme Court vacated Acheson Hotels v. Laufer as moot but said the circuit split over whether “testers” have standing “is very much alive.” The high court further vacated the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that the plaintiff, Deborah Laufer, who uses a wheelchair, did have standing to bring ADA claims.

Still, the ruling failed to answer key questions about whether testers, individuals who seek out potential claims for discrimination violations against businesses, have standing to bring such claims amid a legal strategy to barrage businesses with tester lawsuits that often allege mere technical rights violations with a goal of extracting settlement payouts.

Despite once providing hope that the Supreme Court saw the Laufer case as a vehicle for reducing the overwhelming number of ADA lawsuits, including website accessibility lawsuits, when it accepted the case in March 2023, the dismissal of the case as moot does not offer relief for the business community and provides virtually no indication for how this Court (or any other court) will resolve the tester standing issue going forward.

Laufer, a self-proclaimed tester plaintiff who combed through various hotel websites searching for potential ADA violations, alleged that the website for The Coast Village Inn and Cottages in Maine, which was formerly owned by Acheson Hotels, LLC, did not provide sufficient information about its accessible accommodations in violation of Title III of the ADA and relevant U.S. Department of Justice regulations.

After the case was accepted by the Supreme Court, Laufer voluntarily dismissed her suit and asked the court to dismiss the case as moot. During oral arguments in October 2023, the justices questioned whether Laufer dropping her suit in addition to the facts that Acheson Hotels had already sold the hotel in question and the hotel’s current website is currently compliant with Title III, did not render the case moot.

But Acheson Hotels argued that the high court should decide the important standing questions while the issue was briefed and before the court as another appropriate case might not reach the high court anytime soon.

In the high court’s decision, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, stated that while the Court was “sensitive to Acheson’s concern about litigants manipulating the jurisdiction of” the Supreme Court, they were “not convinced … that Laufer abandoned her case in an effort to evade” the Court’s review. Still, Justice Barrett noted that the Court “may exercise [its] discretion differently in a future case.”

Justice Clarence Thomas stated in a separate concurring opinion that he would not dismiss the case as moot and would find that Laufer lacks standing to bring ADA claims. Justice Thomas argued that Laufer did not allege a violation of her rights under the ADA because “the ADA prohibits only discrimination based on disability—it does not create a right to information.

Justice Thomas distinguished Laufer’s claim from that in the 1968 Supreme Court case in Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, in which the high court held, in addressing the Fair Housing Act, that a “dignitary harm” a tester may experience from witnessing discrimination is an adequate harm to establish standing.

Justice Thomas argued that in Havens Realty, “a black tester” who was told there were no apartments available when a “white tester” was told there were “vacancies,” had standing because he had been “personally denied that truthful information.” The situation in that case “thus has no bearing on Laufer’s standing as a tester of compliance with the ADA, which provides no such statutory right to information,” Justice Thomas stated.

Next Steps

With the Supreme Court declining to address tester standing, the issue and broad circuit split remains open. At this time, it is unclear when the high court will have another opportunity to address it, and, if it does, if the plaintiff will effectively moot the case again by abandoning the claim that made its way to the Court. Additionally, while Justice Thomas’s concurrence suggested that Laufer did not have standing based on the facts of her case, the opinion did not reject “dignitary harm” as a basis for standing under Havens Realty.

© 2023, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.
For more news on Supreme Court ADA decisions, visit the NLR Civil Rights section.

Marijuana in the Manufacturing Workplace

The requirement to maintain a safe workplace often clashes with state and local laws that protect the rights of individuals who use marijuana while off-duty, creating unique challenges for manufacturing employers.

Manufacturing employers still may prohibit the use of marijuana at work, as well as marijuana impairment at work. But marijuana drug testing is complicated and controversial because of the legal protections for off-duty marijuana use in some states and cities, the legal protections for medical marijuana users in many jurisdictions, and because there are no drug tests that can detect current marijuana impairment or very recent use of marijuana.

Federal Law

Manufacturers no longer should defend “zero tolerance” marijuana drug testing policies. Previously, employers could argue that marijuana still is illegal under federal law or that the employer is a federal contractor that must comply with the federal Drug-Free Workplace Act. The federal government has not enforced the law that makes marijuana illegal for some time, and it has permitted states to create and enforce their own laws with respect to medical and recreational marijuana.

Some courts have recognized that the federal government is allowing state governments to regulate marijuana and, therefore, courts are enforcing state marijuana laws despite marijuana’s illegal status at the federal level. Courts also have rejected arguments that federal contractors “must follow federal law” because the federal Drug-Free Workplace Act does not require drug testing and does not permit employers to regulate off-duty conduct.

State Laws

At present, 39 states and the District of Columbia have medical marijuana laws, while 22 states and the District of Columbia have recreational marijuana laws (Maryland’s law will take effect in July and others will be enacted in the coming months). Many of these laws provide employment protections to applicants and employees. The variations in the laws make it difficult for multi-state manufacturers to have consistent marijuana policies in all locations.

What It Means for Employers

Due to the recent trend in some states to protect off-duty use of marijuana, and even prohibiting pre-employment marijuana testing, many manufacturers are discontinuing pre-employment marijuana testing, especially in states where marijuana is legal. Applicants often are surprised to learn that a positive marijuana drug test will lead to withdrawal of the job offer. If the positive marijuana drug test result is due to medical use (and there are no general off-duty protections in the state), manufacturers must be familiar with the applicable law.

Some states prohibit discrimination against medical marijuana users, while other states may allow an employer to take an adverse employment action if the job is considered “safety-sensitive,” i.e., a job with dangerous duties, as defined by applicable state law.

In certain other states where discrimination is prohibited and the manufacturing employer has safety concerns, the employer should engage in the “individualized assessment” and “direct threat analysis” required under state laws that mirror the federal Americans With Disabilities Act. This process includes discussions with the applicant and the applicant’s physician to assess the safety risk.

Reasonable suspicion marijuana testing is permissible in most states because impairment at work never is permitted. In states where off-duty marijuana use is protected, manufacturers should rely on the impaired behaviors when taking disciplinary action, rather than rely solely on the positive marijuana drug test result (assuming that testing for marijuana is permitted). This is because marijuana stays in the human body for a long time, so the positive drug test result is not conclusive proof that the employee was impaired at work. Manufacturers also should make sure that supervisors and managers are trained to observe and document reasonable suspicion determinations properly, as these documented observations will be key evidence in a potential lawsuit.

To make matters even more complicated, CBD (cannabidiol), “low THC,” and hemp products are being marketed and sold everywhere since Congress legalized hemp (having no more than 0.3 percent THC, the psychoactive component of marijuana) in 2018. Separate from marijuana laws, the use of “low THC” or CBD products is allowed in a number of states, usually for medical purposes, which means that manufacturing employers should tread carefully when an applicant or employee claims to use CBD products for medical reasons. While many CBD and hemp products are marketed as having little or no THC, these statements may not be true, because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not yet regulate them. These products may cause positive drug test results for marijuana. There has been an increase in lawsuits where former employees claim that their positive marijuana drug test results allegedly were caused by CBD products.

While it appears that marijuana eventually will be legalized at the federal level, manufacturers must ensure they are complying with all applicable laws. Manufacturing employers should:

  • Review drug and alcohol policies for compliance with applicable drug testing and marijuana laws;
  • Remove marijuana from the drug testing panel in locations where testing for marijuana is prohibited and locations where off-duty use is protected and consider removing it in other locations where it may be an obstacle in the hiring process;
  • Train Human Resources employees and other managers to engage in the interactive process with employees who use medical marijuana (or medical CBD products); and
  • Train supervisors to make appropriate and timely “reasonable suspicion” determinations.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2023

For more cannabis legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Alcohol Suppliers Hit with ADA Website Accessibility Lawsuits

The increasing popularity of online shopping is placing e-commerce businesses—specifically those in the alcohol beverage industry—in legal crosshairs. In lockstep with a recent uptick in website accessibility cases, plaintiff firms are sending pre-suit demand letters to alcohol suppliers and, in some cases, even filing a state or federal court lawsuit. These lawsuits—which are typically filed in California or New York—involve claims that a supplier’s website is not accessible to individuals who are blind in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and related state laws. In these cases, plaintiffs seek attorneys’ fees, damages (only under state law) and injunctive relief that would require the website to conform with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) standards, which have been broadly adopted by courts and regulators.

To prevail on a website accessibility claim, plaintiffs must first show that a defendant is a private entity that owns, leases or operates a “place of public accommodation.” Courts, however, are split on what it means for a website to be considered a place of public accommodation under Title III of the ADA. While some jurisdictions require that there be a “physical nexus” between the website and a brick-and-mortar store, other jurisdictions have permitted these cases to go forward against a website-only company that does not own or operate any physical retail location.

In addition to establishing that the supplier’s website is a place of public accommodation, the plaintiff must satisfy certain jurisdictional requirements which will depend upon whether products can be purchased directly from the website as well as whether the supplier ships to the state in which the suit was filed. Leveraging these defenses (among others) will be critical when it comes to either convincing the plaintiff to withdraw the claim, filing a motion to dismiss or achieving an early resolution on favorable terms.

Due to the rise in these website accessibility lawsuits, we encourage industry members to take a proactive approach:

  1. Train personnel on accessibility requirements and WCAG standards.
  2. Test the website against WCAG standards (through independent consultants or user testing).
  3. Retain testing documentation to demonstrate that users with disabilities can fully use the website.
  4. Assess potential areas of non-conformance with WCAG standards.
  5. Work with internal/external technical teams to implement accessibility features into the website.
  6. Develop an accessibility policy that informs users about the company’s accessibility practices.
  7. Consider including a link to the website accessibility policy on every webpage, including a reporting option that is appropriately routed to address accessibility issues.
  8. Regularly audit the website to assess its level of accessibility (particularly after website updates).
  9. Engage legal counsel to minimize litigation risk associated with website accessibility issues, including whether the ADA is applicable to the company’s website in light of the current state of the law.

Article By Jeremy White and Alva C. Mather of McDermott Will & Emery

For more biotech, food, and drug news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 McDermott Will & Emery

Disability in the Workplace: The Key to Equal Access and Accommodations

The month of October is designated as National Disability Employment Awareness Month (NDEAM) to educate the public about the issues faced by people with disabilities in pursuing, obtaining, and keeping employment. 

There are approximately 5.5 million employees in the United States who have some type of disability, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, and these employees account for at least 4% of the employed population. It is likely that almost all large employers have had disabled employees at some point in time. This has not always been the case, however. Until the passage of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) in 1990, disabled persons in the United States were often denied employment opportunities. And even today, despite the passage of the ADA, there are millions of individuals with disabilities who cannot find meaningful employment despite their capabilities and skills.

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 was the first legislation to address the idea of equal access for individuals with disabilities through the removal of architectural, employment, and transportation barriers. But the Rehabilitation Act only reached those businesses and employers who received federal funding — the vast majority of businesses were not impacted by it. But the advances created by the Rehabilitation Act marked the first time that the exclusion and segregation of persons with disabilities was recognized as unlawful discrimination. The Rehabilitation Act recognized that although there are major physical and mental variations in different disabilities, people with disabilities as a group faced similar discrimination in employment, education, and social access.

Thus spurred on by the advances achieved through the Rehabilitation Act, the disability rights community was determined to expand these rights to the larger general population. Their efforts culminated in the signing of the ADA in 1990, which is a watershed event in U.S. history. The ADA is premised on a basic presumption that people with disabilities want to and are capable of working, want to be members of the community, and that the exclusion and segregation of people with disabilities would no longer be tolerated in our society.

Although the ADA reaches many parts of our lives, it has brought profound changes to the workplace. No longer is it legal for employers to refuse to hire applicants with disabilities, terminate employees who becomes disabled, or otherwise treat disabled employees differently than other employees in the terms and conditions of employment. And not only must employers treat disabled employees equally, the ADA requires them to affirmatively accommodate their disabilities in order that the disabled workers can participate equally with other employees in the workplace.

The ADA defines disability as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. The ADA defines a physical impairment as a physiological disorder that affects a body system and a mental impairment as a psychological or mental disorder, such as emotional or mental illness, developmental disorders, and learning disabilities. An impairment that is episodic or in remission, such as cancer or HIV, is a disability if it would substantially limit a major life activity when active. Major life activities include almost everything we do, such as seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, and working.

Employers are required under the ADA not only to not discriminate against disabled employees but to also provide reasonable accommodations to them so they can perform the essential functions of their jobs. A reasonable accommodation is a modification or adjustment to a job or to the work environment that enables an individual with a disability to have an equal opportunity not only to get a job, but to successfully perform their job tasks to the same extent as people without disabilities. Reasonable accommodations should not be viewed as “special treatment,” and they often benefit all employees. Examples of reasonable accommodations include making existing facilities accessible, job restructuring; part-time or modified work schedules, acquiring or modifying equipment, changing training materials or policies, and providing qualified readers or interpreters. Many job accommodations cost very little and often involve minor changes to a work environment, schedule, or work-related technologies.

Employers should always engage a disabled employee in a discussion to find a mutually acceptable reasonable accommodation that will permit the employee to perform their job but not create an undue hardship on the employer. Although employers do not necessarily have to provide the accommodation requested by the employee, they should take into account the employee’s wishes and attempt to accommodate unless such an accommodation would create an undue hardship. There are as many accommodations as there are individuals with disabilities, and the employer’s responsibility is to make sure they have looked at all reasonable accommodations before deciding that providing an accommodation would be an undue hardship to the employer. The undue hardship standard is very high and should be used very sparingly and only when all other accommodation efforts have been exhausted.

In conclusion, the passage of the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA have provided great benefits to our society and have given opportunities to millions of individuals who in the past would have been unfairly and discriminatorily excluded from the workforce.

This article was written by Debbie Whittle Durban of Nelson Mullins law firm. For more articles about employee accommodation, please visit here.

Rights of HIV-Positive Job Applicants and Employees

Job ApplicantsHIV infection is a disability under the Americans with Disabilites Act. What rights and responsibilities does an employer have in relation to HIV-positive applicants and employees? The EEOC recently clarified its position concerning HIV-positive individuals in the workplace in a press release, as well as documents addressing the rights of HIV-positive workers, including the right to be free from discrimination and harassment, and guidance to physicians in facilitating accommodations for those individuals.more

An HIV-positive applicant/employee can generally keep his or her condition private, unless he or she is requesting a reasonable accommodation, or if there is objective evidence (not based on “myths or stereotypes”) that he or she may be unable to do the job or poses a safety risk. Employers do not have to retain employees who are unable to perform, or who pose a “direct threat” to safety, defined by the EEOC as a significant risk of substantial harm even with a reasonable accommodation.

Of course, the applicant or employee is free to choose to reveal his or her status in response to an employer affirmative action program, and the employer may ask medical questions after a job offer has been made, but before employment begins, if everyone entering the same job category is asked the same questions. An employee may also have to discuss his or her HIV status with an employer in order to establish eligibility under other laws, such as the FMLA.

Physicians are reminded that nothing in the ADA alters legal and ethical privacy obligations to patients, and that they should disclose medical information to an employer only if and as authorized by the patient in a signed release. For example, a patient may request that his or her healthcare provider not disclose a specific diagnosis, in which case the physician may state, generally, that the patient has an “immune disorder,” rather than stating that he or she is HIV-positive. Providers may need to discuss an alternative accommodation with the employer, if an initially proposed accommodation would be too difficult or costly.

During FY2014, the EEOC resolved almost 200 charges of discrimination based on applicant/employee HIV status, obtaining more than $825,000.00 for those individuals.

ARTICLE BY Jami K. Suver of Steptoe & Johnson PLLC

© Steptoe & Johnson PLLC. All Rights Reserved.