$600,000 Verdict for Failure to Accommodate
- Details
- Published on Thursday, 09 June 2011 17:05
A federal court jury returned a verdict of $600,000 against AutoZone, Inc. for allegedly failing to provide a reasonable accommodation to a disabled sales manager, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced. An additional claim for $115,000 in back pay will be decided at a later date. According to the EEOC, AutoZone required a sales manager to perform certain cleaning tasks, including mopping floors, which violated his medical restrictions related to permanent back and neck impairments. At trial, the EEOC presented evidence that mopping floors was a non-essential function of the sales manager position that could have been reassigned to other employees, and that the employee could perform all of the essential functions of his job. The sales manager testified that the disabled employee had asked not to be assigned mopping and supported his request with documentation of his impairment. The EEOC also presented evidence that in 2003, new store management refused the request and required the employee to mop, leading to further injury and necessitating a medical leave. EEOC regional attorney in Chicago, John Hendrickson, commented that "Any employer who thinks that the EEOC is reluctant to take cases to trial or that ordinary juries in courts across the country will shy away from returning big verdicts in ADA cases ought to readjust his thinking in a hurry."...
Experts Give Opinions on Leave as Reasonable Accommodation
- Details
- Published on Thursday, 09 June 2011 17:03
At a June 8 meeting, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) received a range of perspectives from a panel of experts concerning the use of leave to provide reasonable accommodations for workers with disabilities. The good news is that although the witnesses differed as to employer and employee obligations, they "agreed on the need for clear and uniform guidance from the EEOC." Both the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) require reasonable accommodations when appropriate. And, leaves of absenceincluding those beyond an employer's permitted number of days offcan constitute reasonable accommodations. EEOC Commissioner Victoria Lipnic observed that, "Managing situations where employees need leave for medical conditions is one of the most vexing issues for both employers and employees. Today's meeting should educate employers about complying with the law and educate us at the EEOC about making these difficult situations more manageable, ultimately making us all more successful in keeping people with disabilities engaged in the workforce." Offering the view of large employers, Ellen E. McLaughlin, a partner in the law firm Seyfarth Shaw LLP, requested that the EEOC provide "more detailed and defined examples of situations where maximum leave policies are called into question and provide examples of times when additional leave will be deemed necessary and when it will not."
Read more: Experts Give Opinions on Leave as Reasonable Accommodation
Employee Files Suit Against U.S. Bank for Disability Discrimination
- Details
- Published on Wednesday, 08 June 2011 07:00
Robert Quinn is a former senior vice president of U.S. Bank, who suffers from type 2 diabetes. He was terminated by his supervisor and subsequently filed a lawsuit against U.S. Bank alleging disability discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and state common law against U.S. Bank and the supervisor. The bank and supervisor moved for summary judgment, arguing that Quinn's causes of action were preempted by section 24 of the National Bank Act, which grants national banks the power to dismiss officers "at pleasure." The trial court agreed that plaintiff's causes of action were preempted and granted summary judgment. On appeal, the court reversed, concluding that section 24's "at pleasure" clause was impliedly amended by the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA. Specifically, the court noted that "As amended, section 24 preempts FEHA only to the extent that FEHAs disability provisions exceed the requirements of the ADA. Because the bank has not demonstrated that plaintiff's FEHA claims are preempted in their entirety by section 24, we reverse the grant of judgment for the bank as to those claims. Plaintiff concedes that his claim against his former supervisor is preempted, and we affirm the grant of summary judgment in his favor."...
Read more: Employee Files Suit Against U.S. Bank for Disability Discrimination
OSHA Establishes New Recordkeeping Advisor
- Details
- Published on Tuesday, 07 June 2011 07:00
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has announced the formation of the "OSHA Recordkeeping Advisor," a website designed to help employers determine: (1) Whether an injury or illness (or related event) is work-related; (2) Whether an event or exposure at home or on travel is work-related; (3) Whether an exception applies to the injury or illness; (4) Whether a work-related injury or illness needs to be recorded; (5) Which provisions of the regulations apply when recording a work-related case. The OSHA Recordkeeping Advisor also "presents questions and relies on responses to determine the appropriate course of action." Some employers may be exempt from OSHA's recordkeeping rules, for example those with 10 or fewer employees during the previous calendar year and those classified in specific industries. If an employer is unsure about whether it is covered by the requirements, the employer may refer to 29 CFR 1904.1. The OSHA Recordkeeping Advisor is "written in plain language and intended to assist employers, especially small business employers, in understanding their recordkeeping requirements under OSHA regulations."...
EEOC Proposes To Extend Recordkeeping Requirements to GINA
- Details
- Published on Tuesday, 07 June 2011 07:00
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) proposes to extend its recordkeeping requirements under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to employers covered by Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) which prohibits employment discrimination based on genetic information. More specifically, GINA prohibits the use of genetic information in making employment decisions, it limits the disclosure of genetic information, and it prohibits retaliation against employees who complain about genetic discrimination. Pursuant to the EEOC's proposal, its current Title VII and ADA recordkeeping regulations would be amended to add GINA, thereby requiring that employers maintain any workplace records that are created pursuant to GINA. Title VII regulations require those employers who are subject to Title VII to retain any personnel records that they create for one year from the date the record is made or one year from the date of any personnel action, whichever date occurs later. Pursuant to the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) employers must retain such records for at least two years from when they are created, or from the date of a personnel action, which ever date occurs later....
Read more: EEOC Proposes To Extend Recordkeeping Requirements to GINA
