You are here: Home REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION

Legislation Introduced to Expand Protections for Pregnant Employees

  • Print
Article Information
Published on Wednesday, 22 May 2013 16:23

          Senators Robert Casey (D-PA) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) in the Senate, and Representatives Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Jackie Speier (D-CA), Susan Davis (D-CA) and Marcia Fudge (D-OH) in the House, joined by the leaders of women’s advocacy organizations, unions, and business groups from across the nation, have introduced legislation – the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act – to ensure that pregnant women are not denied reasonable job modifications that would allow them to continue working. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act will require employers to make reasonable accommodations for pregnant workers and prohibit employers from requiring pregnant employees to take leave when another reasonable accommodation would allow them to continue working. The bill also bars employers from denying employment opportunities to women based on their need for reasonable accommodations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. Read More.

EEOC Alleges Employer Withdrew Job Offer Because of Cancer Surgery

  • Print
Article Information
Published on Wednesday, 08 May 2013 16:24

          An Atlanta-based air transport communications and information technology company has agreed to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).  The EEOC charged that SITA Information Networking Computing USA, Inc. violated federal law by rescinding Darlene Case's offer of employment rather than accommodating her disability. The company offer Case a position as a full-time personal assistant to SITA's vice president. Shortly after accepting the offer, however, Case learned that she would require cancer surgery, and requested a reasonable accommodation of having her start date moved. Although SITA agreed to this accommodation, when her extended start date arrived, Case then requested that she be allowed to work part-time for the first two weeks to complete her recovery.  SITA allegedly refused to grant this request and instead rescinded its employment offer. Read More.

Employer to Pay $40,000 to Settle Alleged Disability Discrimination Lawsuit

  • Print
Article Information
Published on Tuesday, 02 April 2013 22:27

          San Antonio-based Dependable Health Services, Inc. (DHS), which provides contract workers to U.S. military facilities, has agreed to pay $40,000 as part of a settlement of a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC's suit charged that DHS fired an employee assigned to its corporate office when she returned to work after being hospitalized for stroke-like symptoms, because management officials believed she had suffered a stroke. According to the EEOC, the employee had been cleared to return to work by her doctor with a temporary two-week restriction on work hours, but was still experiencing temporary facial paralysis likely caused by Bell's palsy when she was terminated by DHS. According to EEOC Trial Attorney David Rivela of the EEOC’s San Antonio Field Office, "In this case an employee suffered financially because an employer misjudged her condition and her ability to work." Read More.

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.

  • Print
Article Information
Published on Monday, 01 April 2013 17:27

          The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that jury was justified in finding that an employer is not required to engage in an onsite evaluation to interactively create a reasonable accommodation for a disabled employee, if a treating physician’s restrictions would prevent that individual from performing those essential functions at all. Hohn v. BNSF Railway Co., 8th Cir., No. 12-1041, February 28.  Read More. 

Employers Cannot Discriminate on the Basis of a “Perceived Disability”

  • Print
Article Information
Published on Wednesday, 27 March 2013 15:37

          Presbyterian Healthcare Associates Corp., one of the largest health care institutions in North Carolina, allegedly federal law by refusing to hire an applicant for a phlebotomist position because of an impairment to his left knee, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has charged. According to the EOCC's complaint, Donovus Todd has a permanent physical impairment of his left knee as a result of a knee injury.  In 2009, Todd received medical clearance to participate in a phlebotomist training program at a community college in Charlotte. As part of the program, Todd completed a seven-week phlebotomist internship with Presbyterian Healthcare. On completion of the program, Todd applied for and was offered a permanent position with Presbyterian Healthcare as a phlebotomist, pending a health screening exam.  Todd disclosed the knee impairment during the health screening and provided Presbyterian Healthcare with his related medical records, and then the company rescinded its job offer.  According to the EEOC, Todd was fully qualified for the position and could perform its duties, but was denied hire simply because Presbyterian Healthcare perceived him to be disabled as a result of his knee injury. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) protects employees and applicants from discrimination based on real or perceived disabilities.

More Articles...

  1. Toys “R” Us is Sued for Alleged Failure to Provide Interpreter for Deaf Applicant
  2. DOL Founded One Century Ago
  3. Jury Finds for EEOC in Discrimination Case Involving Employee Diagnosed With Epilepsy
  4. Totally but Temporarily Disabled Worker Denied Additional Leave Could Pursue Disability Discrimination Claim, California Court Rules
  5. Employer to Pay 50K For Alleged Failure to Provide Extended Leave to Disabled Employee
  6. Employer May be Required to Grant Pregnancy Leave Beyond 16 Weeks
  7. Appeals Court Upholds $425,000 Award to Disabled Former Employee
  8. EEOC Alleges Employee was Allegedly Fired for Not Wearing Prosthetic Arm
  9. Law Firm Sued by the EEOC for Disability Discrimination
  10. Employer Sued For Allegedly Failing to Return Employee to Work After Surgery
  11. Employers May Need to Provide Sick Leave Beyond Maximum Time Allowed
  12. Dillard’s Will Pay $2 Million to Settle Disability Discrimination Lawsuit
  13. Disabled Employees Must be Able to Perform the Essential Functions of the Job
  14. FEHC Proposed Amendments to Disability Regulations Noticed
  15. City of Merced Settles Disability Discrimination Lawsuit for $425,000
  16. Nationwide Trucking Firm to Pay $4.85 Million for Alleged Disability Discrimination
  17. Rite Aid Agrees to Settle Alleged Disability and Retaliation Discrimination Lawsuit
  18. Understanding An Employer’s Ongoing Obligation to Accommodate Disabled Employees
  19. Wendy’s Franchisee Agrees to Pay $41,000 to Settle Disability Discrimination Lawsuit
  20. HR Practice Pointer: Morbid Obesity is a Disability Under the ADA
  21. EEOC Files Lawsuit Against a Bank for Alleged Age and Disability Discrimination
  22. EEOC Alleges Employer Illegally Shunned Employees for Taking Prescribed Medications
  23. JAN is a Valuable Resource for Employers on Reasonable Accommodations
  24. Seventh Circuit Alters the ADA Landscape by Reversing Its Precedent on Job Reassignment
  25. Employer Will Pay $95,000 to Settle EEOC Disability Discrimination Lawsuit
  26. 7th Circuit Holds ADA Requires Preference When Reassigning Employee to a Vacant Position as a Reasonable Accommodation
  27. Governor Brown Signs Legislation on Accommodation of an Employee’s Religious Clothing
  28. Indefinite Exemption From Essential Functions is Not a Reasonable Accommodation
  29. EEOC Commissioners to Conduct Disability Discrimination Training Sessions
  30. Wal-Mart Will Pay $50,000 for Alleged Failure to Accommodate a Disabled Employee
  31. EEOC Sued For Disability Discrimination
  32. Employers May Not Discriminate on the Basis of Intellectual Disabilities
  33. HR Practice Pointer: Job Descriptions Should Specifiy the Essential Functions
  34. “Morbid Obesity” is a Disability Under the ADA
  35. EEOC Files Disability Discrimination Lawsuit Against Howard University
  36. Employers Must Avoid Discriminating Against Qualified Job Applicants With a Disability
  37. Employers May Need To Offer An Accommodation To An Employee Returning From A Medical Leave Of Absence
  38. Employees May Be Entitled To A Reasonable Accommodation Upon Returning To Work From A Medical Leave
  39. Court Holds Employee Created A Direct Threat To The Workplace Due to His Heart Condition
  40. According to the 5th Circuit, “Indefinite Leave is Not a Reasonable Accommodation”
  41. 9th Circuit Holds “Dependable Performance Requires Reliable and Dependable Attendance”
  42. A Medical Leave of Absence Can be a Reasonable Accommodation
  43. Wal-Mart Sued for Alleged Disability Discrimination
  44. EEOC Sues Employer for Alleged Religious Discrimination Based on Failure to Accommodate
  45. Job Qualification Standard Requiring High School Diploma May Violate ADA
  46. UPS Must Pay 96K for Terminating Disabled Employee
  47. Air Canada Must Pay $325,000 for Alleged Disability Discrimination
  48. Employer to Pay $135,000 for Alleged Failure to Accommodate a Disabled Employee
  49. Bank Of America Allegedly Failed To Accommodate Blind Employee
  50. The Scooter Store Sued For Disability Discrimination
  51. EEOC Alleges Employer Failed to Provide Medical Leave Accommodation
  52. Choosing Between “Accommodation” Leave and Other Types of Accommodations
  53. $600,000 Verdict for Failure to Accommodate
  54. Experts Give Opinions on Leave as Reasonable Accommodation
  55. EEOC to Examine Use of Leave As Reasonable Accommodation
  56. Starbucks Sued by EEOC for Disability Discrimination
  57. The City Of Los Angeles Must Pay $1.5 Million For Disability Discrimination
  58. Tip of the Week: Employers Must Provide Lactation Break
  59. How Can an Employer Comply With GINA When Lawfully Requesting Health-Related Information From an Employee?