Tag: Americans with Disabilities Act

United Airlines to Pay over $1 Million To Settle EEOC Disability Lawsuit

In a case that garnered nationwide attention, air transportation giant United Airlines Inc. has agreed to pay more than $1 million and implement changes to settle a federal disability lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Seal

The EEOC’s lawsuit charged that United’s competitive transfer policy violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The law requires an employer to provide reasonable accommodation to an employee or job applicant with a disability, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship for the employer. By requiring workers with disabilities to compete for vacant positions for which they were qualified and which they needed in order to continue working, the company’s practice frequently prevented employees with disabilities from continuing employment with United, the EEOC said.

The consent decree settling the suit, signed by Hon. Judge Harry Leinenweber and entered today, requires United to pay $1,000,040 to a small class of former United employees with disabilities and to make changes nationally. United will revise its ADA reassignment policy, train employees with supervisory or human resource responsibilities regarding the policy changes, and provide reports to the EEOC regarding disabled employees who were denied a position as part of the ADA reassignment process.

This resolution concludes a lengthy and complicated lawsuit. Although the EEOC originally filed the lawsuit on June 3, 2009 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California – San Francisco, United successfully moved for a change of venue to the Northern District of Illinois. Bound by an earlier precedent which held that a competitive transfer policy similar to United’s policy did not violate the ADA, the lower court dismissed the EEOC’s case in February 2011.  However, in a decision reviewed by the full court, the Seventh Circuit agreed with the EEOC that EEOC v. Humiston Keeling, 227 F.3d 1024 (7th Cir. 2000) “did not survive” an intervening Supreme Court decision, U.S. Airways v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391 (2002).  The Seventh Circuit reversed the lower court’s dismissal and found that “the ADA does indeed mandate that an employer assign employees with disabilities to vacant positions for which they are qualified, provided that such accommodations would be ordinarily reasonable and would not present an undue hardship to the employer.” The Supreme Court refused United’s subsequent request for review on May 28, 2013. EEOC Appellate Attorney Barbara Sloan handled the appeal and Supreme Court briefing for the agency.

“The appellate court’s decision provided an important clarification regarding an employer’s responsibility under the ADA to provide a reasonable accommodation so qualified employees may lead economically independent lives,” said EEOC General Counsel David Lopez. “I am pleased this major decision also served as a springboard for the strong monetary and non-monetary remedies in today’s resolution.”

EEOC Regional Attorney William Tamayo said, “If a disability prevents an employee from returning to work in his or her current position, an employer must consider reassignment. As the Seventh Circuit’s decision highlights, requiring the employee to compete for positions falls short of the ADA’s requirements. Employers should take note: When all other accommodations fail, consider whether your employee can fill a vacant position for which he or she is qualified.”

EEOC San Francisco Acting District Director Michael Connolly noted, “We commend United for agreeing to make these important companywide changes that will enable employees with disabilities to stay employed at jobs they are qualified to do, as was intended under the ADA’s protections.”

According to the company website, United Airlines has almost 84,000 employees in every U.S. state and in many countries around the world. The air carrier has the world’s most comprehensive route network, including U.S. mainland hubs in Chicago, Denver, Houston, Los Angeles, New York / Newark, San Francisco and Washington, D.C. and operates an average of nearly 5,000 flights a day to 373 airports across six continents.

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

ARTICLE BY U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
© Copyright U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

DOJ Settlement Suggests Push to Expand ADA Coverage to All Websites and Apps

Morgan Lewis logo

The chance of future DOJ investigations justifies companies’ reviews of customer-oriented websites and apps for accessibility.

As consumers continue to use the Internet and their smartphones for their shopping in astonishing numbers, especially on this Cyber Monday, a recent Department of Justice (DOJ) settlement agreement raises questions and potential serious implications for any company with customer-oriented websites or mobile applications. The settlement agreement requires Ahold USA., Inc. and Peapod, LLC (Peapod) to make the www.peapod.com website and Peapod’s mobile applications accessible to the disabled, including persons with vision, hearing, and manual impairments. The settlement agreement demonstrates that the DOJ is reviewing and/or monitoring websites and mobile apps for accessibility and remains aggressive in its push to extend the requirements of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to all websites and mobile apps—even when the sites are unrelated to actual physical places of public accommodation. According to the settlement agreement, the DOJ concluded that www.peapod.com was inaccessible to the disabled after initiating a “compliance review” authorized by Title III and its implementing regulations.[1] Peapod, however, contested the DOJ’s conclusion that www.peapod.com and Peapod’s mobile apps were not ADA compliant.

The settlement agreement is particularly noteworthy because www.peapod.com is a purely online grocery delivery service, unrelated to a “brick and mortar” physical place of public accommodation. Most courts considering application of the ADA to websites require a website to have a “nexus” to a physical place.[2] In the past, the DOJ has required websites and mobile apps to be accessible—for example, in a March 2014 consent decree with H&R Block. However, unlike the H&R Block consent decree, which involved a website and mobile apps with a nexus to physical places, the Peapod settlement agreement requires that a website and apps with no nexus to a physical place be made accessible to the disabled. The Peapod settlement agreement therefore shows that the DOJ’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), which is expected in March 2015, may require—in the words of the Abstract for the DOJ’s NPRM—the websites and apps of “private entities of all types,” even “[s]ocial networks and other online meeting places” to comply with the ADA.

The settlement agreement also indicates which standards the DOJ’s regulations eventually may require websites and mobile apps to meet. The settlement agreement requires www.peapod.com and Peapod’s mobile apps to comply with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0, Level AA (WCAG 2.0 AA). The DOJ has required compliance with the WCAG 2.0 AA in the past, including in the H&R Block consent decree. The Peapod settlement agreement further requires Peapod to designate a Website Accessibility Coordinator to coordinate compliance with the agreement; adopt a Website and Mobile Application Accessibility Policy; post a notice on its home page on its accessibility policy, which would include a toll-free number for assistance and a solicitation for feedback; annually train website content personnel on conforming Web content and apps to the WCAG 2.0 AA; seek contractual commitments from its vendors to provide conforming content, or (for content not subject to a written contract) seek out content that conforms to the WCAG 2.0 AA; modify bug fix priority policies to include the elimination of bugs that create accessibility barriers; and conduct automated accessibility tests of the website and apps at least once every six months and transmit the results to the government. The settlement agreement, which stays in effect for three years, additionally provides that every 12 months, the Website Accessibility Coordinator must submit a report to the government that details Peapod’s compliance or noncompliance with the agreement. Peapod is not the only entity that will conduct testing under the settlement agreement. At least once annually, individuals with vision, hearing, and manual disabilities will test the usability of the Web pages. Notably, however, the settlement agreement does not impose damages or a civil penalty on Peapod.

There is a chance that the DOJ’s eventual regulations will differ from the standards to which the DOJ requires Peapod to conform. The settlement agreement accounts for that possibility. It states that if the DOJ promulgates final regulations on website accessibility technical standards during the term of the settlement agreement, the parties must meet and confer at either’s request to discuss whether the agreement must be modified to make it consistent with the regulations.

[1]. See 42 U.S.C. § 12188(b)(1)(A)(i) (“The Attorney General . . . shall undertake periodic reviews of compliance of covered entities under this subchapter.”); 28 C.F.R. § 36.502(c) (“Where the Attorney General has reason to believe that there may be a violation of this part, he or she may initiate a compliance review.”).

[2]. See, e.g., Nat’l Fed. of the Blind v. Target Corp., 452 F. Supp. 2d 946, 953–56 (N.D. Cal. 2011).

ARTICLE BY

Anne Marie Estevez
Beth S. Joseph
Christopher K. Ramsey
OF
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP

Inflexible Leave Policies under the ADA since Hwang

Jackson Lewis Law firm

Since 2009, the EEOC has sued numerous employers who have terminated employeespursuant to an inflexible leave policy, a policy that provides a defined amount of leave and results in an employee’s termination once the employee exhausts that leave.  The EEOC argues that such policies are unlawful because they do not allow for additional leave to be provided as a reasonable accommodation.

And then along came Hwang.  Hwang had used all of the six months of leave under her employer’s inflexible leave policy. When her request for additional leave was denied, she sued, arguing that her employer needed to provide additional leave as a reasonable accommodation. The Tenth Circuit held that the very policy decried as blatantly unlawful by the EEOC was fair, lawful and actually protects employees with disabilities.  Hwang v. Kansas State University (10th Cir. May 29, 2014). “After all,” the court said, “reasonable accommodations … are all about enabling employees to work, not to not work.” (Emphasis added). See our Hwang post here.

What has happened since Hwang? One month after Hwang, on June 30, 2014, according to an EEOC press release, Princeton Health Care System settled an inflexible leave policy lawsuit brought by the EEOC by paying $1.35 million. The System also agreed, among other things, not to adopt an inflexible leave policy, i.e., that type of policy found lawful in Hwang.  PCHS had provided its employees up to 12 weeks of leave, the maximum amount provided by the FMLA, according to the EEOC.  The EEOC’s press release also notes that employers have paid more than $34 million to resolve lawsuits the EEOC has brought concerning leave and attendance policies.

More recently, on July 10, 2014, the EEOC sued Dialysis Clinic, Inc. for terminating a nurse who had exhausted her employer’s inflexible leave policy (four months of leave). EEOC v. Dialysis Clinic, Inc. (E.D.CA). At the time of termination, according to the EEOC press release, the employee had been “cleared by her doctor to return to work without restrictions in less than two months.”

The apparent conflict between Hwang and the EEOC’s view that inflexible leave policies are indefensible exacerbates the challenge facing employers in search of the answer to the most vexing ADA question–how much job-protected leave must an employer provide under the ADA?  More than three years have passed since the EEOC held a public hearing on leave as a reasonable accommodation under the ADA and suggested it might issue guidance on the topic. We posted previously that waiting for that guidance is like waiting for Beckett’s Godot, where those waiting come to the realization at the end of each day that he is not coming today, he might come tomorrow.  Employers continue to wait. In the words of Beckett’s Estragon, “such is life.”

Article By:

Michael J. Soltis
Of:
Jackson Lewis P.C.

 

Illinois Federal Court Issues Reminder That "100% Healed" Requirements Violate ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act)

vonBriesen

 

On February 11, 2014, an Illinois Federal District Court issued a decision reminding employers that “100% healed” return-to-work requirements violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). In EEOC v. United Parcel Service, Inc., the U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) filed a lawsuit alleging that United Parcel Service’s (“UPS”) “100% healed” requirement violated the ADA. UPS moved to dismiss the complaint, claiming that the EEOC could not state a claim that there was a violation of the ADA. The Court denied UPS’s motion and permitted the EEOC lawsuit to proceed.

UPS maintained a leave policy requiring employees to be “administratively separated from employment” after 12 months of leave. In 2007, an employee returned from a 12-month medical leave. After returning, the employee requested certain accommodations, including a hand cart. UPS refused to provide any accommodation. Shortly thereafter, the employee injured herself and needed additional medical leave. Instead of granting leave, UPS terminated the employee under its 12-month leave policy.

The EEOC alleged that UPS’s 12-month leave policy acted as a “100% healed” requirement because it functioned as a “qualification standard” under the ADA. UPS argued that the ability to regularly attend work was an essential job function and not an impermissible “qualification standard” and, therefore, not in violation of the ADA.

Although the Court conceded that regular job attendance is an essential job requirement, the court found that the lawsuit was not based on attendance requirements, but rather on the “100% healed” requirement that an employee must satisfy before returning to work. As a prerequisite to returning to work, the 12-month policy was a “qualification standard” and not an essential job function subject to accommodation. A “qualification standard” is “the personal and professional attributes, including the skill, experience, educational, physical, medical, safety and other requirements established by a covered entity as requirements an individual must meet in order to be eligible for the position held or desired.”

The court relied on the Seventh Circuit’s previous determination that a “100% healed” policy is per se impermissible because it “prevents individualized assessments” and “necessarily operates to exclude disabled people that are qualified to work.” A “100% healed” requirement limits the ability of qualified individuals with a disability to return to work. Thus, a “100% healed” acts as a prohibited “qualification standard” because it removes the opportunity for the employee to pursue reasonable accommodation, in violation of the ADA. Accordingly, the court denied UPS’s motion to dismiss and permitted the EEOC’s lawsuit to proceed.

Although this case does not provide a definitive answer to the EEOC’s lawsuit, it does provide a strong reminder to employers that “100% healed” policies violate the ADA. Employers should review their return to work policies to ensure that they do not contain “100% healed” requirements. When dealing with leave issues, employers also should remember to enter into the interactive process when necessary and balance obligations under federal, state and local disability and leave requirements, in addition to those created by contract or agreement.

Article by:

Geoffrey S. Trotier

Of:

von Briesen & Roper, S.C.