disability discrimination Archives - The National Law Forum

Seventh Circuit: ADA Does Not Prohibit Discrimination Based on Future Impairments

On October 29, 2019, railway operator Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company (“BNSF”) prevailed before the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit – which covers Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin – in a case in which the company argued that its refusal to hire an obese candidate due to an unacceptably high risk that the applicant would develop certain obesity-related medical conditions incompatible with the position sought did not violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).

Ronald Shell applied for a job with BNSF as a machine operator position. Per its standard practice when the applied-for position is safety-sensitive, as was the heavy equipment operator position sought by Shell, BNSF required him to undergo a medical examination. During the medical examination, the examiner determined that Shell’s body mass index (“BMI”) was 47. BNSF had a practice of refusing to hire individuals with a BMI higher than 40 for safety-sensitive positions. In Shell’s case, the employer expressed concern that his obesity, although not causing any present disability, would cause Shell disabilities in the future, such as sleep apnea, diabetes, and heart disease. BNSF asserted that this risk was significant because a sudden onset of any of these conditions could be catastrophic for a heavy machine operator. BNSF therefore did not place Shell in the position.

Shell sued, arguing that he was “disabled” under the ADA’s definition of that term because BNSF had “regarded him as” having a disability. The ADA not only protects individuals who are actually disabled or have a record of being disabled, but also protects individuals who have been subjected to an adverse employment action because of an actual or perceived physical impairment, whether or not that impairment substantially limits a major life activity. Shell argued that by refusing to hire him based on the risk of future disabilities that he was at risk of as a result of his obesity, BNSF essentially treated him as though he currently had those conditions.

The Court ruled that the ADA does not protect non-disabled employees from discrimination based on a risk of future impairments. The Court cited precedent from the Eighth Circuit, where BNSF also faced challenges to its practice of refusing to hire obese applicants due to the risk of future impairments. The Eighth Circuit, like the Ninth and Tenth Circuits, also has held that the statutory language of the ADA does not protect non-disabled individuals who have a risk of disability in the future.

Of note, Shell also argued at the trial court level that his obesity constituted an actual disability, rendering BNSF’s refusal to hire him based on this characteristic a violation of the ADA for this reason as well. However, as you may recall from our blog post from earlier this year, just a few months ago, the Seventh Circuit addressed this argument in another case, Richardson v. Chicago Transit Authority, and held that obesity, by itself, is not a disability for purposes of the ADA unless it is caused by an underlying physiological disorder. Shell did not present any evidence in his case of such an underlying disorder, and thus could not, therefore, claim that he was actually disabled. Notably, the federal appellate courts are split on this issue, which may tee it up for consideration by the United States Supreme Court in the future. In contrast, among the appeals courts that have addressed the issue of future disabilities, all have agreed, thus far, that the ADA’s reach does not extend to potential or likely future disabilities of currently non-disabled individuals.

ARTICLE BY Daniel B. Pasternak of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP.

For more ADA litigation, see the National Law Review Labor & Employment law page.

Wal-Mart to Pay $75,000 to Settle EEOC Disability Lawsuit

CHICAGO – Wal-Mart Stores Inc. will pay a former employee $75,000 to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced yesterday.

EEOC’s lawsuit charged Wal-Mart with violating federal discrimination law when the giant retailer failed to accommodate Nancy Stack, a cancer survivor with physical limitations, and subjected her to harassment based on her disability. Stack worked at a Walmart store in Hodgkins, Ill.

As a workplace accommodation, Stack needed a chair and a modified schedule. EEOC alleged that while the store provided Stack with a modified schedule for a period of time, it revoked the accommodation for no stated reason. Further, according to EEOC, the store did not ensure that a chair was in Stack’s work area, telling her that she had to haul a chair from the furniture department to her work area, a task that was difficult, given her disability. Making matters even worse, EEOC alleged that a co-worker harassed Stack by calling her “cripple” and “chemo brain.”

Wal-Mart’s alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability, which can include denying reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities and subjecting them to a hostile work environment. EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.; Civil Action No. 15-cv-5796.)

Wal-Mart will pay $75,000 in monetary relief to Stack as part of a consent decree settling the suit, signed by U.S. District Judge Sharon Coleman on Dec. 6th. The two-year decree also provides additional, non-monetary relief intended to improve the Hodgkins store’s workplace. Under the decree, the store will train employees on disability discrimination and requests for reasonable accommodations under the ADA. The Walmart store will also monitor requests for accommodation and complaints of disability discrimination and report those to EEOC.

“Wal-Mart refused to provide simple, effective and inexpensive accommodations in the form of a chair and modified schedule and failed to protect Stack from mocking because she had cancer,” said John Hendrickson, regional attorney of EEOC’s Chicago District Office. “Both the failure to provide accommodations and to stop the harassment violated federal law, and we are pleased with today’s settlement. Ms. Stack will receive monetary recompense from Wal-Mart, and the company will be required to educate its workforce on employees’ rights and on its own obligations under the law.”

You can review this press release in its entirety on the EEOC website here.

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.

ARTICLE BY U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Termination For Conduct Caused By Side Effects of Prescription Medication Was Not Disability Discrimination

A federal court in Florida has upheld an employee’s termination due to her “inebriated” conduct that was caused by her use of prescription medications, holding that her discharge did not constitute disability discrimination. Caporicci v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., Case No. 8-14-cv-2131-T-36EAJ (M.D. Fla. May 27, 2016).

Lisa Caporicci worked for Chipotle as a crew member and had a long history of depression and bi-polar disorder. In April 2013 she informed her manager that she took medication for bi-polar disorder but did not mention any side effects or behavioral issues that might arise from taking the medication.

In May 2013, Caporicci began taking new medication because she was experiencing panic attacks. At that time, she requested a few days off and her request was granted. She did not work for five days and returned on June 4, 2013. Four days later, she reported for work in what appeared to be an inebriated state. She was “very slow, messed up orders and was incoherent.” Caporicci’s supervisor took her off the serving line and sent her home. She was fired later that day, for violating Chipotle’s Drug and Alcohol Policy, which prohibits employees from reporting for work or being at work under the influence of alcohol, drugs or controlled substances, or with any detectable amount of alcohol, drugs or controlled substances in his or her system. The policy further provides that if an employee takes prescription medication that may adversely affect the ability to perform the job, he/she must notify his/her manager prior to starting work.

Caporicci asserted disability discrimination claims under federal and state law, as well as FMLA interference and retaliation claims. Her FMLA claims were dismissed because she had been employed less than 12 months. As to her disability discrimination claims, Caporicci argued that firing her for medication side effects was tantamount to firing her for her disability.

The Court noted that courts are split on the question of whether a termination based on conduct related to, or caused by, a disability constitutes unlawful discrimination. The majority position, which includes courts in the Eleventh Circuit, holds that an employer may discipline or terminate an employee for workplace misconduct even when the misconduct is a result of the disability. Additionally, the U.S. Supreme Court discounted the minority position in Raytheon Company v. Hernandez, 540 U.S. 44, 55 n.6 (2003), stating: “To the extent that [the Ninth Circuit] suggested that, because respondent’s workplace misconduct is related to his disability, petitioner’s refusal to rehire respondent on account of that workplace misconduct violated the ADA, we point out that we have rejected a similar argument in the context of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.”

For these reasons, the Court followed the majority position and held that Caporicci’s termination was not discrimination based on her disability, but rather, it was the result of her employer’s application of a neutral policy which prohibited employees from reporting to work under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

Article By Kathryn J. Russo of Jackson Lewis P.C.

EEOC Sues McDonald's for Disability Discrimination

Fast Food Giant Denied Sign Language Interpreter for Deaf Applicant

KANSAS CITY, Mo. — McDonald’s Corporation and McDonald’s Restaurants of Missouri violated federal law by refusing to accommodate and hire a deaf applicant, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed today.

According to the suit, Ricky Washington, who is deaf, applied online for a job at a McDonald’s restaurant in Belton, Mo. in June 2012. Washington indicated on his application that he attended Kansas School for the Deaf. Washington also said he had previous job experience working as a cook and clean-up team member at a McDonald’s restaurant in Louisiana in 2009. When the Belton restaurant manager learned Washington needed a sign language interpreter for his job interview, she canceled the interview and never rescheduled it, despite Washington’s sister volunteering to act as the interpreter. Restaurant management continued to interview and hire new workers after Washington made several attempts to schedule an interview.

Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), which prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in employment and requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for job applicants so they will have equal opportunities during the application process. EEOC filed its lawsuit (EEOC v. McDonald’s Corporation, et al, 4:15-cv-01004-FJG) in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. EEOC seeks back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, and injunctive relief, including training for all McDonald’s managers on accommodations for applicants with disabilities, particularly those who are deaf.

EEOC St. Louis District Director James R. Neely, Jr. said, “Removing obstacles in the hiring process for people with disabilities is a national priority for EEOC. All employers, but especially large ones, should join with the agency to make sure everyone has equal access to the employment process.”

“People with disabilities have one of the highest unemployment rates in the country,” added EEOC Regional Attorney Andrea G. Baran. “Providing equal employment opportunities to all job applicants – including those with disabilities – is not just the law, it is good for our economy and our workplaces.”

According to company information, McDonald’s is a global fast food provider that serves over sixty-nine million customers per day in 100 different countries. The Belton, Mo. restaurant is owned and operated by the corporation’s world-wide headquarters in Oak Brook, Illinois.

Eliminating barriers in recruitment and hiring is one of six national priorities identified by EEOC’s Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP).

The St. Louis District Office oversees Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma and a portion of southern Illinois.

EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination.

The original content can be viewed here.

EEOC Sues McDonald’s for Disability Discrimination

Fast Food Giant Denied Sign Language Interpreter for Deaf Applicant

Eliminating barriers in recruitment and hiring is one of six national priorities identified by EEOC’s Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP).

The St. Louis District Office oversees Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma and a portion of southern Illinois.

EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination.

The original content can be viewed here.

Death Threats against Co-Workers Defeat Employee Disability Discrimination Claim, Federal Court Rules

A depressed employee who was fired for threatening to kill his co-workers was not a qualified individual entitled to protection under the Americans with Disabilities Act, as the employee could not perform essential job functions, with or without an accommodation, a federal appeals court in San Francisco has ruled, affirming judgment in favor of the employer. Mayo v. PCC Structurals, Inc., No. 13-35643 (9th Cir. July 28, 2015). The Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction over Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington.

Background

Timothy Mayo was a welder for PCC Structurals, a manufacturer of specialized aircraft parts. Mayo was diagnosed with major depressive disorder in 1999, but medication and treatment enabled him to continue working without incident until 2010, when he began to feel he was being bullied by his supervisor. Mayo told three different co-workers that he wanted to kill the supervisor. He told one co-worker that he felt like bringing a shotgun to work and “blowing off” the heads of the supervisor and another manager. He told another co-worker that he wanted to “bring a gun down and start shooting people.” Mayo said he wanted to start shooting at 1:30 p.m., because by that time all of his supervisors would be at the worksite, thereby presenting him with a maximally target-rich environment.

Mayo’s co-workers reported the threats to the employer. When questioned, Mayo told an HR representative that he “couldn’t guarantee” he would not carry out the threats. PCC immediately suspended Mayo and called the police. The police took Mayo into custody for six days on the basis that he was an imminent threat to himself and others. After his release from police custody, Mayo spent two months on Family and Medical Leave Act and Oregon Family Leave Act leave. Mayo’s psychologist and a nurse practitioner cleared him to return to work and suggested that Mayo be assigned a different supervisor. Instead, PCC terminated Mayo’s employment.

Mayo brought an Americans with Disabilities Act case against PCC, arguing that his threats were the result of his diagnosed major depressive disorder and that PCC Structurals failed to accommodate him (by following the suggestion of his doctor that he be assigned a different supervisor).

The District Court granted summary judgment to the employer, holding that Mayo could not establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination. Mayo was unable to show he could perform the essential functions of his job with or without a reasonable accommodation and, therefore, he was not a “qualified individual” under the ADA.

Expressed Homicidal Ideation in Workplace Bars ADA Discrimination Claim

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court decision. Its holding was straightforward: Mayo was not a “qualified individual” under the ADA because he could not perform the essential functions of his job:

An essential function of almost every job [including Mayo’s] is the ability to appropriately handle stress and interact with others.

The logic of our holding is that compliance with such fundamental standards is an “essential function” of almost every job.

Writing for the panel, Judge John B. Owens stated that threatening the lives of one’s co-workers “in chilling detail” on multiple occasions indicates that an employee cannot appropriately handle stress and interact with others. The Court also held that, even when the threatening comments can be traced back to a disability, such as major depressive disorder, the employee’s inability to handle stress and interact with others renders him unable to perform essential job functions and negates a claim under the ADA.

The Ninth Circuit’s decision brings it in line with several sister Circuits that have held employers cannot be forced to choose between accommodating a disability and creating an unsafe workplace for other employees. The Court said:

The [ADA] does not require an employer to retain a potentially violent employee. Such a request would place an employer on a razor’s edge — in jeopardy of violating the [ADA] if it fires such an employee, yet in jeopardy of being deemed negligent if it returned him and he hurts someone. The [ADA] protects only “qualified” employees, that is employees qualified to do the job for which they were hired; and threatening other employees disqualifies one.

While acknowledging prior cases holding that conduct resulting from a disability “is considered to be part of the disability,” the Ninth Circuit ruled that when it comes to overt threats to kill co-workers, employers have no obligation to “simply cross their fingers and hope that violent threats ring hollow …. [W]hile the ADA and Oregon disability law protect important individual rights, they do not require employers to play dice with the lives of their workforce.”

Addressing Mayo’s claim that PCC Structurals should have reasonably accommodated him by following his psychologist’s suggestion that he be assigned a different supervisor, the Ninth Circuit stated:

Giving Mayo a different supervisor would not have changed his inappropriate response to stress – it would have just removed one potential stressor and possibly added another name to the hit list.

Implications

The Court was faced with a person clearly disabled by major depression who manifested that disability through very specific threats of violence. While being sensitive to the realities of mental illness, the Court ultimately was forced to decide whether safety of the workplace must take primacy over the otherwise extant protections of the ADA for disabled employees. The Ninth Circuit came down on the side of workplace safety. Its ruling can be summarized as “Safety first. ADA second.”

The decision applies only to misconduct that takes the form of violence (or the expression of homicidal or violent ideation in the workplace). The Court did not hold that all forms of employee misconduct fall outside the ADA. Indeed, it emphasized that its holding was limited to “the extreme facts . . . of an employee who makes serious and credible threats of violence.” It stated that employees who are rude, gruff, unpleasant, or anti-social may have a “psychiatric disability” and, thus, be a “qualified individual” under the ADA. Where non-violent misconduct stems from a disability, it will continue to be deemed a part of the disability, requiring employers to attempt accommodation to mitigate future disability-driven misconduct.

ARTICLE BY Andrew L. Pepper of Jackson Lewis P.C.

Wal-Mart to Pay $150,000 to Settle EEOC Age and Disability Discrimination Suit

Keller Store Manager Was Harassed and Fired Because of His Age and Denied Accommodation for His Diabetes, Federal Agency Charged

Wal-Mart Stores of Texas, L.L.C. (Wal-Mart) has agreed to pay $150,000 and provide other significant relief to settle an age and disability discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today. The EEOC charged in its suit that Wal-Mart discriminated against the manager of the Keller, Texas Walmart store by subjecting him to harassment, discriminatory treatment, and discharge because of his age. The EEOC also charged that Wal-Mart refused to provide a reasonable accommodation for the man’s disability as federal law requires.

According to the EEOC’s suit, David Moorman was ridiculed with frequent taunts from his direct supervisor, including “old man” and “old food guy.” The EEOC further alleged that Wal-Mart ultimately fired Moorman because of his age. Such alleged conduct violates the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of age 40 or older, including age-based harassment.

The EEOC’s suit also alleged that Wal-Mart unlawfully refused Moorman’s request for a reasonable accommodation for his diabetes. Following his diagnosis and on the advice of his doctor, Moorman requested reassignment to a store co-manager or assistant manager position. According to the suit, Wal-Mart refused to engage in the interactive process of discussing Moorman’s requested accommodation, eventually rejecting his request. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Wal-Mart had an obligation to reasonably accommodate Moorman’s disability.

The EEOC filed suit on March 12, 2014, (Case No. 3:14-cv-00908 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

“Mr. Moorman was subjected to taunts and bullying from his supervisor that made his working conditions intolerable,” said EEOC Senior Trial Attorney Joel Clark. “The EEOC remains committed to prosecuting the rights of workers through litigation in federal court.”

Under the terms of the two-year consent decree settling the case, Wal-Mart will pay $150,000 in relief to Moorman. In addition, Wal-Mart agreed to provide training for employees on the ADA and the ADEA. The training will include an instruction on the kind of conduct that may constitute unlawful discrimination or harassment, as well as an instruction on Wal-Mart’s procedures for handling requests for reasonable accommodations under the ADA. Wal-Mart will also report to the EEOC regarding its compliance with the consent decree and post a notice to employees about the settlement.

“The EEOC is pleased that Wal-Mart recognized the value of resolving this case without any further court action,” said EEOC Dallas District Director Janet Elizondo.

ARTICLE BY

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

EEOC Sues Sushi at the Lake for Disability Discrimination

Cornelius Restaurant Unlawfully Refused to Hire Applicant Because of Amputated Arm, Federal Agency Charges

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – Greenhouse Enterprise, Inc., dba Sushi at the Lake, which operates a restaurant in Cornelius, N.C., violated federal law when it refused to hire a job applicant because of his disability, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed today.

According to the EEOC’s complaint, Matthew Botello’s left arm was amputated above his elbow around November 2010. On or about Oct. 4, 2013, Botello applied to work as a busboy (or “busser”) at Sushi at the Lake, and on Oct. 10, Botello was told to report to the restaurant to work the following day. Shortly after Botello arrived on Oct. 11, the restaurant’s owner saw that Botello’s left arm had been amputated. The EEOC said that the owner gestured at Botello’s left side and told Botello that he could not bus tables because he had only one arm. Although Botello told the owner that he had bussed tables at another restaurant, the owner told Botello he could not work and to leave Sushi at the Lake.

Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which protects applicants and employees from discrimination based on their disabilities. The EEOC filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina Charlotte Division (EEOC v. Greenhouse Enterprise, Inc. d/b/a Sushi at the Lake, Civil Action No.3:14-cv-00569 after first attempting to reach a voluntary pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The EEOC seeks back pay, compensatory damages, and punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief.

“Employers need to understand the importance of treating people equally despite whatever physical challenges they may face,” said Lynette A. Barnes, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Charlotte District Office. “In this case, we allege that Mr. Botello was not hired because of assumptions made about his abilities based on his arm amputation. Employers must be careful not to violate federal law by making assumptions about people with disabilities.”

ARTICLE BY

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

It Depends: The Top 3 Inherently Gray Areas of Employment Law

Fact-specific.

Case by case.

These are just two of the terms that stand for one of the frustrating (for employers) truths of many areas of employment law: there are few black and white answers. There are endless shades of gray, and in honor of this week’s letter of the law (G), we recognize three common gray areas and some specific questions that must be asked when addressing situations under each. The fact that there are so many questions that need to be answered under each explains why they are gray areas!

The Letter G

1. Is a noncompete agreement enforceable?

What duties did the employee perform for the previous employer?
What duties is the employee performing for the new employer?
Did the employee engage in any underhanded behavior while still employed by the previous employer (such as copying confidential documents)?
What have been the previous employer’s practices and track record in enforcing noncompetes in the past?
What state’s law does the agreement say will apply?
What state is the employee located in now?
Does the contract specify where any disputes must be litigated?

2. Does an employer have to provide a particular reasonable accommodation under the disability discrimination laws?

What efforts have been made to communicate with the employee about the situation?
Has the employee been cooperative in responding to inquiries?
Do you have a medical assessment of the employee’s ability to perform his/her job?
Do you trust that assessment (or do we think the physician’s assistant filled it out the way the employer wanted him/her to)?
How unique are the employee’s job duties?
What are the job duties?
Which job duties do you thing are not being adequately performed?
Do you question the employee’s efforts in attempting to work, or do you think the employee is to any degree malingering?

3. Is a worker an independent contractor or an employee?

Is there any written agreement with the worker?
Are there are other workers performing the same or similar tasks, and are they considered employees or contractors?
How much direction is the worker receiving from the company on the details of performing tasks?
Does the worker provide services for other companies?
Is the worker full time or close to it for your company?
Does the worker provide any or all of the tools need to perform his/her work?
How long has the worker been working for your company?

These issues are like snowflakes. With so many questions (and these are not intended to be exhaustive lists), no two sets of answers will be exactly alike. That can be frustrating, because it is easier to administer rules with clearer thresholds: Two weeks of vacation. No flip flops at work. The work day is 8:30 to 5:00 with a half hour lunch break at noon. Those rules are usually pretty easy. Like it or not, though, what employment lawyers and employers spend most of their time on are the snowflakes, and carefully working through the situations to manage them as cost-effectively as possible.

What gray areas are you spending your time on this week?

ARTICLE BY

William A. Nolan

Barnes & Thornburg LLP

Tag: disability discrimination

Seventh Circuit: ADA Does Not Prohibit Discrimination Based on Future Impairments

Like this:

Wal-Mart to Pay $75,000 to Settle EEOC Disability Lawsuit

Like this:

Termination For Conduct Caused By Side Effects of Prescription Medication Was Not Disability Discrimination

Like this:

EEOC Sues McDonald's for Disability Discrimination

Like this:

EEOC Sues McDonald’s for Disability Discrimination

Like this: