Companies Continue to Illegally Require Employees to Be 100% Healed Before Returning to Work

I continue to be surprised by the number of companies that refuse to accommodate workers who have disabilities or who are returning from medical leave. Requiring an employee to be “100% healed” with no medical restrictions is nearly always a violation of the the ADA.

EEOC Sues FedEx For Disability Discrimination

The Federal Express Corporation (FedEx), a global shipping and logistics company, violated federal law when it failed to provide reasonable accommodations for qualified, disabled ramp transport drivers with medical restrictions, and instead forced them to take unpaid leave or fired them, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed today.

— EEOC Release

7th Circuit Upholds Jury Verdict Against Walmart for Discrimination Against Worker with Down Syndrome

The Seventh Circuit Court of appeals rejected Walmart’s appeal, holding that the “jury heard sufficient evidence to find Walmart violated the Americans with Disabilities Act when it changed its scheduling policy and failed to accommodate an employee with Down syndrome who had difficulty adapting to her new hours, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held Aug. 27. (EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P.)” Read opinion here.

“The employee, a sales associate in Wisconsin for more than 15 years, worked an afternoon shift so she could catch a bus to and from work, according to court documents. After she was given an adjusted, slightly later shift, she repeatedly expressed confusion and asked for her old shift back, the documents said. She also often left early — the same time as before to catch her bus — or missed work altogether. After multiple absences and coaching, Walmart fired her.” — via HRDive

The jury awarded $125 Million in punitive damages, which was reduced to $300,000 by statutory caps.

Employers Not Allowed to Hide Discrimination Through Use of a Staffing Company

Conduent State and Local Solutions, Inc., the operator of the New York E-ZPass toll collection system, and Broadleaf Results, Inc., an employment agency, have reached a settlement agreement of $120,000 and other relief in a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The case not only highlights the issue of disability discrimination but also raises important questions about joint employment and the responsibilities of client employers and staffing agencies under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The settlement aims to rectify the alleged violations and includes both monetary and non-monetary provisions to prevent future discrimination.

The Lawsuit

The lawsuit, filed by the EEOC in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (EEOC v. Broadleaf Results, Inc. and Conduent State and Local Solutions, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-4557-PKC-LB), revolves around an employee who was terminated after requesting an accommodation for her hearing-related condition. The employee was placed by Broadleaf to work as a customer service representative at Conduent's E-ZPass Customer Service Center in Staten Island, N.Y. When she experienced difficulties hearing customer calls, she promptly informed both Broadleaf and Conduent supervisors and requested a reasonable accommodation. Additionally, she sought a meeting with management to discuss the status of her accommodation request. Unfortunately, a Broadleaf manager responded by stating, "If you cannot hear, then you can't do the job," resulting in immediate termination. Conduent, as the client employer, failed to take appropriate corrective action to address the discriminatory decision made by Broadleaf, despite being aware of the situation.

Joint Employment and ADA Violations

This case not only sheds light on disability discrimination but also raises the issue of joint employment. In an economy where staffing agencies are increasingly utilized by companies to source workers for essential business functions, it becomes crucial for both client employers and staffing agencies to establish processes that allow workers with disabilities to request accommodations to perform their job's essential functions. The ADA mandates that employers engage with applicants and employees to provide reasonable accommodations for disabilities and prohibits adverse actions against qualified employees based on their disability. Client employers cannot simply hide behind staffing agencies as the employer-of-record to evade their obligations under the ADA.

The EEOC's Legal Action: The EEOC filed the lawsuit after attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through the conciliation process. EEOC Trial Attorneys Edumin Corrales and Anastasia Doherty led the litigation, with supervision from EEOC Assistant Regional Attorney Kimberly A. Cruz. By taking legal action, the EEOC aims to ensure that individuals with disabilities are protected from discrimination and that employers fulfill their responsibilities under the ADA.

Settlement Details

The settlement agreement consists of two consent decrees, providing a total payment of $120,000, including compensation for lost wages and other damages suffered by the employee. In addition to the monetary relief, the agreement includes significant non-monetary provisions designed to prevent further discrimination. These provisions encompass injunctive measures that prohibit both Broadleaf and Conduent from discriminating against employees and contingent workers based on disability. Moreover, the settlement requires updates to each company's internal policies to ensure compliance with federal anti-disability discrimination laws. Additionally, mandatory training for management employees about disability accommodation and discrimination laws is part of the settlement to foster awareness and prevent future violations.

Summing it Up

The settlement reached between Conduent and Broadleaf not only resolves the specific disability discrimination case but also highlights the importance of addressing joint employment issues in employment cases. Employers are not allowed to hide discriminatory actions through their use of a staffing company.

Read the EEOC’s Press Release

New York Votes to Prohibit Discrimination Based on Weight or Height

The New York City Council recently enacted legislation prohibiting employment discrimination premised on an individual's weight or height, signifying a critical advancement in the sphere of employment law. The law contains a provision granting an exception to employers for whom an employee's height or weight is intrinsically tied to the execution of vital job functions, as well as to operators or providers of public accommodations.

This legislation positions New York City alongside a select number of other cities that have already instituted prohibitions against weight-based discrimination, including Urbana, Illinois; Madison, Wisconsin; Binghamton, New York; San Francisco; Santa Cruz, California; and Washington, D.C. Moreover, the states of Michigan and Washington have passed similar laws, according to a study by Vanderbilt University.

This development signals a potential new direction in the ongoing battle against workplace discrimination, with an increasing focus on size discrimination. Recent data illuminates the pervasiveness of size discrimination, with a ResumeBuilder survey indicating that over a quarter of respondents reported experiencing weight discrimination in the workplace. This percentage increases dramatically to 53% and 71% when focusing on self-identified overweight and obese respondents, respectively.

Supplementing these findings, recent May data from the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) suggest that these experiences are not anomalous. According to SHRM, half of people managers reported a preference for interactions with "healthy weight" employees, while 11% acknowledged that obese individuals in their organizations are not treated equitably.

The impact of such bias extends beyond fostering a respectful and inclusive workplace environment; it may also significantly influence employee retention. A substantial 75% of workers who reported experiencing such discrimination indicated that it fostered a desire to leave their current employment.

The new law takes into account necessary allowances for height and weight considerations integral to the performance of essential job functions. It also does not prohibit employers from providing incentives that promote weight management within the framework of a voluntary wellness program. This balanced approach seeks to promote fairness while acknowledging the realities of certain job requirements.