Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) Archives - Page 3 of 4

Dialysis Clinic is Sued for Alleged Disability Discrimination

Francisca Lee worked as a nurse at Dialysis Clinic, Inc. for fourteen years. According to a recent suit filed by the EEOC, after Lee was diagnosed with cancer, she took medical leave to undergo a mastectomy and chemotherapy.

The dialysis clinic terminated Lee’s employment after four months, stating she had exceeded the time limit as stated in the company’s medical leave policy.

According to this article, Lee was told that if she wished to work at the clinic again, she would need to reapply for an open position. After doing so, Lee’s application was rejected and according to the suit, Dialysis Clinic, Inc. instead hired a newly licensed nurse.

A spokeswoman for Dialysis Clinic, Inc. denies the allegations made in the complaint, stating, “DCI is proud of its record of employing and making accommodations for persons with disabilities, both in general and in this instance in particular.”

Regional EEOC Attorney William R. Tamayo, “I would urge employers to be flexible concerning leave extensions if it causes no undue hardship. Ms. Lee has over 30 years’ experience in dialysis treatment and really wanted to work.”

Lee is currently employed as a full time nurse for another dialysis company.

If you or someone you know thinks they have been discriminated against due to a disability, the team at Radford & Keebaugh can help. Contact us by phone at (678) 369-3609 or use our contact form.

EEOC Updates Its Pregnancy Discrimination Guidelines

In a strong move to deter the upward rise in pregnancy discrimination, for the first time in thirty years, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has updated its pregnancy guidelines.

As described in this article, Chairwoman for the EEOC, Jacqueline A. Berrien, stated, “Despite much progress, we continue to see a significant number of charges alleging pregnancy discrimination, and our investigations have revealed the persistence of overt pregnancy discrimination, as well as the emergence of more subtle discriminatory practices.”

According to the latest EEOC data, between 1997 to 2011 there was a 46 percent increase in pregnancy related complaints to the EEOC.

In part, the new guidelines bar employers from forcing pregnant employees to take leave, and provides that employers may be required to provide light duty to pregnant employees as needed. In addition, the updated EEOC guidelines provide that similarly situated male employees shall be given the same rights as women in regards to parental leave.

The EEOC’s new pregnancy guidelines set forth how the Americans With Disabilities Act is applicable to pregnant workers. They also make clear that any discrimination and/or harassment based on past, present or future pregnancy against any woman is strictly illegal.

If you or someone you know thinks they have experienced employment discrimination due to pregnancy, the team at Radford & Keebaugh can help. Contact us by phone at (678) 369-3609 or use our contact form.

WalGreens Reaches $180,000 Settlement for Diabetic Worker’s Termination

Josefina Hernandez worked as a cashier for Walgreens for almost 18 years. In 2008, her employment with the drugstore was terminated due to what Walgreens interpreted as theft.

While she was at work, the 57 year old diabetic suffered an attack from low blood sugar. In an to attempt to stabilize her low blood sugar, Hernandez grabbed a $1.39 bag of chips and ate them. Hernandez paid for the chips after she recovered from the attack. The longtime cashier was terminated for violating Walgreen’s antitheft policy.

After a failed attempt at reconciliation, the EEOC filed suit against Walgreens on behalf of Ms. Hernandez.

According to this article, U.S. District Judge William Orrick rejected Walgreens attempt to dismiss the suit. Instead of facing a jury that would decide whether or not the former cashier was fired due to her disability, the drugstore offered settlement in the action. In addition to the reached settlement, Walgreens has agreed to train staff on accommodating employees that have disabilities.

If you or someone you know thinks they have been discriminated against due to a disability, the team at Radford & Keebaugh can help. Contact us by phone at (678) 369-3609 or use our contact form.

Disabled Employee Sues Wal-Mart for Discrimination

William Clark, an intellectually challenged individual, was employed at Wal-Mart for eighteen years. As part of his accommodation as a disabled employee, Clark was given daily written assignments throughout his employment with the retailer. With this accommodation, Clark was able to successfully perform his job duties, meeting company expectations on a consistent basis.

For reasons that are not known at this time, Wal-Mart rescinded the accommodation given to Clark. As a result, Clark was disciplined for poor job performance and eventually his employment with the store was terminated.

As detailed in this article, the EEOC has filed suit against Wal-Mart for disability discrimination. EEOC regional attorney John Hendrickson stated, “The EEOC’s position in this case is that Wal-Mart just took away – with no good reason – an effective workplace accommodation of an intellectually disabled employee. That reversal fatally compromised the employee’s ability to continue doing a job he had done so well for many, many years, and ended up with him being fired.”

“We intend to show that the company’s action was a particularly senseless violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act – and especially hurtful injustice – that Mr. Clark is entitled to whole relief and to punitive damages, and that the public interest requires strong injunctive measures to correct Wal-Mart’s practices,” Hendrickson stated.

If you or someone you know thinks they have been discriminated against due to a disability, the team at Radford & Keebaugh can help. Contact us by phone at (678) 369-3609 or use our contact form.

ADA Doesn’t Cover Alcoholic Driver

In an opinion issued this week regarding alcoholism as it relates to an ADA claim, the Eleventh Circuit of Appeals found in favor of the employer. From 2003 until 2010, Sakari Jarvela was employed as a truck driver for Crete Carrier Corporation. After he returned from FMLA leave for treatment of his alcoholism, Crete terminated Jarvela’s employment. The primary issue presented to the appellate court was whether or not Crete’s decision to terminate Jarvela’s was lawful under ADA guidelines.

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a plaintiff must establish three things: (1) he is disabled; (2) he is a qualified individual; and (3) he suffered unlawful discrimination because of his disability. In this action, the issue of Jarvela’s status as a qualified individual was a point of contention.

Pursuant to ADA guidelines, a qualified individual is one who “satisfies the requisite skill, experience, education and other job-related requirements of the employment position such individual holds or desires and with, or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of such position.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m). The trucking company’s job description for the position Jarvela held reads in part, an essential function of the job is that the employee meets the qualifications as a commercial driver as set forth by DOT regulations and Crete’s company policy.

The Department of Labor’s guidelines set forth that a person who suffers from a current clinical diagnosis of alcoholism is not medically qualified to drive a commercial truck. In addition, the DOL states that the employer has the burden, ” to ensure that an employee meets all qualifications.” In it’s company policy, Crete prohibits the employment of anyone that has been diagnosed with alcoholism within the past five years.

Under the Family Leave Medical Leave Act, it is unlawful to retaliate against an employee that takes leave under FMLA. Attorneys for Jarvela argued that he was terminated as a form of retaliation. Crete argued that based on its established policy, the company would have terminated Jarvela’s employment even if he had not taken FMLA leave.

For the above described, the appellate court affirmed a lower court’s decision in favor of the employer.

If you or someone you know thinks they have experienced wrongful termination due to an ADA claim, the team at Radford & Keebaugh can help. Contact us by phone at (678) 369-3609or use our contact form.