Employment Law Weekly

  • Skip to content
  • Jump to main navigation and login

Nav view search

Navigation

  • Home
  • Stay Connected
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Research
  • Education
  • Work Law Report
  • LINKS
  • Employment Law Academy
  • Work Comp Academy

Search

Article Categories

  • ADA
  • ADAAA
  • ADEA
  • AGE DISCRIMINATION
  • ARBITRATION
  • BACKGROUND CHECKS
  • BENEFITS
  • BFOQ
  • BULLETIN BOARDS
  • CBAs
  • CFRA
  • CHILD LABOR
  • COBRA
  • DFEH
  • DISABILITY
  • DISCIPLINE
  • DISCRIMINATION
  • DLSE
  • DOL
  • DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS
  • DRESS CODES
  • DRUGS AND ALCOHOL
  • EAPs
  • EEOC
  • EMPLOYEE HANDBOOKS
  • EPLI
  • EQUAL PAY ACT
  • ERGONOMICS
  • ERISA
  • ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS
  • EXEMPT vs. NONEXEMPT
  • FEHA
  • FLSA
  • FMLA
  • GENDER DISCRIMINATION
  • GINA
  • HARASSMENT
  • HEALTH BENEFITS
  • HEALTHCARE
  • HIPAA
  • HIRING
  • HOLIDAYS
  • HSA
  • IMMIGRATION STATUS
  • INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS
  • INTERACTIVE PROCESS
  • INVESTIGATIONS
  • IRS
  • JOB DESCRIPTIONS
  • LAYOFFS
  • LEAVES OF ABSENCE
  • MEAL AND REST PERIODS
  • MILITARY LEAVE
  • MINIMUM WAGE
  • MINORS
  • NLRB
  • NOTICES
  • OSHA
  • OVERTIME
  • PAID FAMILY LEAVE
  • PERSONNEL RECORDS
  • POSTING
  • PREGNANCY
  • PRIVACY
  • RACE DISCRIMINATION
  • REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION
  • REFERENCES
  • RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION
  • RETALIATION
  • RETURN-TO-WORK
  • SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
  • SEVERANCE PAY
  • SEXUAL HARASSMENT
  • SEXUAL ORIENTATION
  • SOCIAL MEDIA
  • SOCIAL SECURITY
  • TECHNOLOGY
  • TERMINATION
  • TITLE VII
  • UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
  • UNIONS
  • USERRA
  • VACATIONS
  • WAGE AND HOUR
  • WARN
  • WHISTLEBLOWING
  • WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
  • WORKPLACE SAFETY
  • WRONGFUL TERMINATION
  • Uncategorized
  • All News

Search News

  • Login Form

  • Forgot your password?
  • Forgot your username?
  • Create an account
You are here: Home ADA

Employers Are Liable for Questions Asked by Contract Medical Providers In Violation of GINA

  • Print
  • Email
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.

EEOC Issues Revised Publications on Specific Disabilities

  • Print
  • Email
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.

EEOC Files Genetic Information Discrimination Lawsuit Against Rehab Center

  • Print
  • Email
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.

EEOC Alleges Company Required Employees to Participate in Scientology Religious Practices

  • Print
  • Email
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.

Panel of Experts at EEOC Conference Discuss Legality of Wellness Programs

  • Print
  • Email
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.

More Articles...

  1. Jury Awards $240 Million for Alleged Disability Discrimination
  2. Court Holds Employee Lawfully Terminated for Failure to Disclose Drug Addition
  3. Employer to Pay $40,000 to Settle Alleged Disability Discrimination Lawsuit
  4. 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.
  5. Employers Cannot Discriminate on the Basis of a “Perceived Disability”
  6. Appeals Court Upholds $425,000 Award to Disabled Former Employee
  7. EEOC Alleges Employee was Allegedly Fired for Not Wearing Prosthetic Arm
  8. Employer Sued For Allegedly Failing to Return Employee to Work After Surgery
  9. Dillard’s Will Pay $2 Million to Settle Disability Discrimination Lawsuit
  10. Rite Aid Agrees to Settle Alleged Disability and Retaliation Discrimination Lawsuit
  11. Understanding An Employer’s Ongoing Obligation to Accommodate Disabled Employees
  12. Wendy’s Franchisee Agrees to Pay $41,000 to Settle Disability Discrimination Lawsuit
  13. HR Practice Pointer: Morbid Obesity is a Disability Under the ADA
  14. EEOC Files Lawsuit Against a Bank for Alleged Age and Disability Discrimination
  15. Disabled Workers Awarded $1.3M For Alleged Pay Discrimination
  16. Tenth Circuit Issues Confirming Decision: Employers Are Not Required to Provide Employees with Indefinite Leave from the Performance of Essential Functions
  17. Seventh Circuit Alters the ADA Landscape by Reversing Its Precedent on Job Reassignment
  18. Employer Will Pay $95,000 to Settle EEOC Disability Discrimination Lawsuit
  19. Court Rules “Psychological Counseling” May Constitute a “Medical Examination” Under ADA
  20. Indefinite Exemption From Essential Functions is Not a Reasonable Accommodation
  21. 11th Circuit Holds Employer’s Wellness Program is Within ADA’s Safe Harbor Provision
  22. Wal-Mart Will Pay $50,000 for Alleged Failure to Accommodate a Disabled Employee
  23. Employer to Pay $50,000 for Alleged Disability Discrimination Related to Job Applicant
  24. “Morbid Obesity” is a Disability Under the ADA
  25. EEOC Files Disability Discrimination Lawsuit Against Howard University
  26. Employers Must Avoid Discriminating Against Qualified Job Applicants With a Disability
  27. Employers May Need To Offer An Accommodation To An Employee Returning From A Medical Leave Of Absence
  28. Employees May Be Entitled To A Reasonable Accommodation Upon Returning To Work From A Medical Leave
  29. Employers Cannot Refuse To Hire A Qualified Applicant Because Of A Disability
  30. An Adverse Employment Action Based On “Perception” Of A Disability Can Create Liability
  31. 9th Circuit Holds Medical Marijuana Use Is Not Protected By ADA
  32. Court Holds Employee Created A Direct Threat To The Workplace Due to His Heart Condition
  33. According to the 5th Circuit, “Indefinite Leave is Not a Reasonable Accommodation”
  34. 9th Circuit Holds “Dependable Performance Requires Reliable and Dependable Attendance”
  35. Determining if a Disability Exists Under the ADA is a Case by Case Determination
  36. U.S. Supreme Court Holds “Ministerial Exception” Bars Employee’s ADA Claim
  37. A Medical Leave of Absence Can be a Reasonable Accommodation
  38. Job Qualification Standard Requiring High School Diploma May Violate ADA
  39. EEOC Alleges Worker Subjected To Name Calling, Denied An Accommodation, Then Fired
  40. Bank Of America Allegedly Failed To Accommodate Blind Employee
  41. Court Rules Employer Properly Terminated Disabled Employee For Performance Issues
  42. Employer Sued For Allegedly Demoting Employee Due To Disability
  43. Employee Allegedly Abused FMLA Leave By Taking It Around Holidays
  44. Reinstatement To Comparable Position Not Required After More Than 12 Weeks Of CFRA Leave
  45. $600,000 Verdict for Failure to Accommodate
  46. Experts Give Opinions on Leave as Reasonable Accommodation
  47. Employee Files Suit Against U.S. Bank for Disability Discrimination

Subscribe to RSS Feed

feed-image Subscribe to RSS Feed
  ©Copyright 2011-2013 Employment Law Weekly  A Division of Floyd, Skeren & Kelly, LLP, All rights reserved. DISCLAIMER: The information on this site is for general information only. This information should not be construed to be formal legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship with the authors of any of this information or their employers. Persons accessing this site are encouraged to seek independent counsel for advice regarding their individual legal issues.