- Article Information
- Published on Friday, 17 May 2013 15:30
As a recent case demonstrates, employers must exercise care to avoid a violation of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) by permitting improper questions, such as questions about an employee’s family history, by a contract medical provider during preemployment physicals. The case involves Fabricut, Inc., one of the world's largest distributors of decorative fabrics. The company has agreed to pay $50,000 and furnish other relief to settle a disability and genetic information discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). This is the first lawsuit ever filed by the EEOC alleging genetic discrimination. In its lawsuit, the EEOC charged that Tulsa-based Fabricut violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) when it refused to hire a woman for the position of memo clerk because it regarded her as having carpal tunnel syndrome, and violated GINA when it asked for her family medical history in its post-offer medical examination. David Lopez, General Counsel of the EEOC commented that, "Employers need to be aware that GINA prohibits requesting family medical history…When illegal questions are required as part of the hiring process, the EEOC will be vigilant to ensure that no one be denied a job on a prohibited basis."
According to the EEOC's suit, Rhonda Jones, worked for Fabricut in a temporary position as a memo clerk for 90 days. When her temporary assignment was coming to an end, she applied for a permanent job in that position.
Fabricut made Jones an offer of permanent employment on August 9, 2011, and sent her to its contract medical examiner, Knox Laboratory, for a pre-employment drug test and physical. When Jones reported for her physical,
she was required to fill out a questionnaire and disclose the existence of numerous separately listed disorders in her family medical history. The questionnaire asked about the existence of heart disease, hypertension, cancer,
tuberculosis, diabetes, arthritis and "mental disorders" in her family. Jones was then subjected to medical testing, from which the examiner concluded that further evaluation was needed to determine whether Jones suffered from carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS).
Fabricut told Jones she needed to be evaluated for CTS by her personal physician and to provide the company with the results. Jones's physician gave her a battery of tests and concluded that she did not have CTS. Although Jones provided this information to Fabricut, the company rescinded its job offer because Knox Labs indicated that she did have CTS. Jones made a written request for reconsideration, emphasizing that she does not have CTS, but Fabricut allegedly ignored her request. Such alleged conduct violates GINA, which makes it illegal to discriminate against employees or applicants because of genetic information, which includes family medical history; and also restricts employers from requesting, requiring or purchasing such information. GINA was signed into law in 2008, and took effect the following year. One of the six national priorities identified by the EEOC's Strategic Enforcement Plan is for the agency to address emerging and developing issues in equal employment law, which includes genetic discrimination. Read More.
- Article Information
- Published on Friday, 17 May 2013 14:45
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has issued four revised documents on protection against disability discrimination, pursuant to the goal of the agency's Strategic Plan to provide up-to-date guidance on the requirements of antidiscrimination laws. The documents address how the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) applies to applicants and employees with cancer, diabetes, epilepsy, and intellectual disabilities. These documents are available on the agency's website at "Disability Discrimination, The Question and Answer Series," http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/disability.cfm. According to EEOC Chair Jacqueline A. Berrien, "Nearly 34 million Americans have been diagnosed with cancer, diabetes, or epilepsy, and more than 2 million have an intellectual disability…Many of them are looking for jobs or are already in the workplace. While there is a considerable amount of general information available about the ADA, the EEOC often is asked questions about how the ADA applies to these conditions."
In plain language, the revised documents reflect the changes to the definition of disability made by the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) that make it easier to conclude that individuals with a wide range of impairments, including cancer, diabetes, epilepsy, and intellectual disabilities, are protected by the ADA. Each of the documents also answers questions about topics such as: when an employer may obtain medical information from applicants and employees; what types of reasonable accommodations individuals with these particular disabilities might need; how an employer should handle safety concerns; and what an employer should do to prevent and correct disability-based harassment. Read More.
- Article Information
- Published on Friday, 17 May 2013 14:35
According to a lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) the Founders Pavilion, Inc., a Corning, N.Y., nursing and rehabilitation center, allegedly violated federal law by asking for genetic information during the hiring process. The EEOC also alleged that Founders violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The EEOC has charged that Founders conducted post-offer, pre-employment medical exams of applicants, which were repeated annually if the person was hired. As part of this exam, Founders requested family medical history, a form of prohibited genetic information. Such alleged conduct is in violation of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), passed by Congress in 2008 and enforced by the EEOC. GINA prohibits employers from demanding genetic information, including family medical history, and using that information in the hiring process. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The Founders suit is the second ever GINA lawsuit filed by the EEOC. Read More.
- Article Information
- Published on Friday, 10 May 2013 16:05
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has charged in a lawsuit that Dynamic Medical Services, Inc., a Miami company which provides medical and chiropractic services, violated federal law by requiring employees to attend courses that involved Scientology religious practices. According to the EEOC's suit, the company allegedly required Norma Rodriguez, Maykel Ruz, Rommy Sanchez, Yanileydis Capote and other employees to spend at least half their work days in courses that involved Scientology religious practices, such as screaming at ashtrays or staring at someone for eight hours without moving. The company also instructed employees to attend courses at the Church of Scientology. Additionally, the company required Sanchez to undergo an "audit" by connecting herself to an "E-meter," which Scientologists believe is a religious artifact, and required her to undergo "purification" treatment at the Church of Scientology. According to the EEOC's suit, employees repeatedly asked not to attend the courses but were told it was a requirement of the job. In the cases of Rodriguez and Sanchez, when they refused to participate in Scientology religious practices and/or did not conform to Scientology religious beliefs, they were terminated.
Requiring employees to conform to religious practices and beliefs espoused by the employer, creating a hostile work environment, and failing to reasonably accommodate the religious beliefs of an employee all violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. "Employees' freedom from religious coercion at the workplace must be protected," said Robert Weisberg, regional attorney for the EEOC's Miami District Office. "These actions are a shameful violation of federal law." Read More.
- Article Information
- Published on Friday, 10 May 2013 15:48
Wellness programs are an increasingly common feature of employee benefits programs, and guidance is needed to avoid violations of federal equal employment opportunity laws, a panel of experts representing business, advocacy groups and providers told the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) at a meeting held today. According to EEOC Chair Jacqueline A. Berrien, "We appreciate the valuable insights and diverse perspectives provided by today's panelists…There has been broad, bipartisan support for the expanded use of wellness programs to reduce health insurance and healthcare costs, but today's meeting underscored the importance of insuring that those programs are designed and implemented in a manner that is consistent with federal equal employment opportunity laws."
A majority of employers now offer some sort of wellness program: 94 percent of employers with over 200 workers, and 63 percent of smaller ones, according to Karen Pollitz of the Kaiser Family Foundation, which researches issues relating to health care. She added that many of these programs offer some sort of financial incentive for participation, which can range from gift cards to higher employer contributions for insurance premiums, or penalties like additional surcharges to employees for health insurance.
The most common intersection of these programs and the statutes EEOC enforces occurs when the programs require medical exams or ask disability-related questions, both of which would ordinarily give rise to a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), EEOC Acting Associate Legal Counsel Christopher Kuczynski told the Commission. He explained that, while the ADA allows employers to ask for medical information in connection with voluntary wellness programs, the meaning of "voluntary" merits further clarification by the Commission. Read More.
- Jury Awards $240 Million for Alleged Disability Discrimination
- Court Holds Employee Lawfully Terminated for Failure to Disclose Drug Addition
- Employer to Pay $40,000 to Settle Alleged Disability Discrimination Lawsuit
- 8th Circuit Upholds Jury's Decision That if Employee is Prohibited by His Doctor From Engaging in the Essential Functions of His Job, no Accommodation is Necessary.
- Employers Cannot Discriminate on the Basis of a “Perceived Disability”
- Appeals Court Upholds $425,000 Award to Disabled Former Employee
- EEOC Alleges Employee was Allegedly Fired for Not Wearing Prosthetic Arm
- Employer Sued For Allegedly Failing to Return Employee to Work After Surgery
- Dillard’s Will Pay $2 Million to Settle Disability Discrimination Lawsuit
- Rite Aid Agrees to Settle Alleged Disability and Retaliation Discrimination Lawsuit
- Understanding An Employer’s Ongoing Obligation to Accommodate Disabled Employees
- Wendy’s Franchisee Agrees to Pay $41,000 to Settle Disability Discrimination Lawsuit
- HR Practice Pointer: Morbid Obesity is a Disability Under the ADA
- EEOC Files Lawsuit Against a Bank for Alleged Age and Disability Discrimination
- Disabled Workers Awarded $1.3M For Alleged Pay Discrimination
- Tenth Circuit Issues Confirming Decision: Employers Are Not Required to Provide Employees with Indefinite Leave from the Performance of Essential Functions
- Seventh Circuit Alters the ADA Landscape by Reversing Its Precedent on Job Reassignment
- Employer Will Pay $95,000 to Settle EEOC Disability Discrimination Lawsuit
- Court Rules “Psychological Counseling” May Constitute a “Medical Examination” Under ADA
- Indefinite Exemption From Essential Functions is Not a Reasonable Accommodation
- 11th Circuit Holds Employer’s Wellness Program is Within ADA’s Safe Harbor Provision
- Wal-Mart Will Pay $50,000 for Alleged Failure to Accommodate a Disabled Employee
- Employer to Pay $50,000 for Alleged Disability Discrimination Related to Job Applicant
- “Morbid Obesity” is a Disability Under the ADA
- EEOC Files Disability Discrimination Lawsuit Against Howard University
- Employers Must Avoid Discriminating Against Qualified Job Applicants With a Disability
- Employers May Need To Offer An Accommodation To An Employee Returning From A Medical Leave Of Absence
- Employees May Be Entitled To A Reasonable Accommodation Upon Returning To Work From A Medical Leave
- Employers Cannot Refuse To Hire A Qualified Applicant Because Of A Disability
- An Adverse Employment Action Based On “Perception” Of A Disability Can Create Liability
- 9th Circuit Holds Medical Marijuana Use Is Not Protected By ADA
- Court Holds Employee Created A Direct Threat To The Workplace Due to His Heart Condition
- According to the 5th Circuit, “Indefinite Leave is Not a Reasonable Accommodation”
- 9th Circuit Holds “Dependable Performance Requires Reliable and Dependable Attendance”
- Determining if a Disability Exists Under the ADA is a Case by Case Determination
- U.S. Supreme Court Holds “Ministerial Exception” Bars Employee’s ADA Claim
- A Medical Leave of Absence Can be a Reasonable Accommodation
- Job Qualification Standard Requiring High School Diploma May Violate ADA
- EEOC Alleges Worker Subjected To Name Calling, Denied An Accommodation, Then Fired
- Bank Of America Allegedly Failed To Accommodate Blind Employee
- Court Rules Employer Properly Terminated Disabled Employee For Performance Issues
- Employer Sued For Allegedly Demoting Employee Due To Disability
- Employee Allegedly Abused FMLA Leave By Taking It Around Holidays
- Reinstatement To Comparable Position Not Required After More Than 12 Weeks Of CFRA Leave
- $600,000 Verdict for Failure to Accommodate
- Experts Give Opinions on Leave as Reasonable Accommodation
- Employee Files Suit Against U.S. Bank for Disability Discrimination