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

Jury Whacks Walmart with $5.2 Million Verdict In Favor of Disabled Worker

A federal jury in Wisconsin awarded a disabled Walmart Inc. employee $5.2 million in damages, finding that the retail chain had violated the Americans with Disabilities Act when it refused to accommodate the long-time worker.

The employee, who has a developmental disability and is deaf and visually impaired had worked as a cart pusher at the store for 16 years before a new manager started at the store. The new store manager suspended the employee in his first month and forced him to resubmit medical paperwork to keep his reasonable accommodations, according to the lawsuit. The store then fired the employee.

Last week a Wisconsin jury found in the employee’s favor after a 3½-day trial and awarded him $200,000 in compensatory damages and an additional $5 million in punitive damages. Sadly, this amount will likely be reduced by operation of the statutory damages caps found in the ADA. These caps have not been adjusted for inflation in almost 30 years.

State of Michigan Hammered with a $11 Million Dollar Verdict in Race and Retaliation Case

Genesee County Courthouse

A Michigan jury awarded more than $11 million this month to a husband-and-wife pair who sued the Michigan Department of Corrections, alleging claims of race discrimination, hostile work environment and retaliation.

A six-member all-white jury delivered its unanimous verdict after a six-week trial that included 41 witnesses and hinged on allegations of racial discrimination and retaliation. The plaintiff alleged that she was racially harassed on a daily basis including being called 'Mammy', (being) asked if she wanted chitlins on her pizza, called the "black one" in her all-white office, and told she was not wanted in the all-white office. She also claimed she was put into life-threatening situations after complaining about racism.

The plaintiff had worked for the state for 19 years. Because of the work environment, the plaintiff transferred to another office, but she said the race discrimination and retaliation continued. Her husband also was allegedly forced to retire from his job as a deputy warden when phony disciplinary charges were brought against him. The jury awarded the plaintiff $5.1 million and her husband $6.25 million.

Read More: Detroit News

Learn More About Racial Discrimination and Retaliation

UPS Will Pay $2.25 Million to Settle EEOC Pregnancy Discrimination Claim

United Parcel Service, Inc. (“UPS”), the world's largest package delivery company, will pay $2.25 million and clarify its pregnancy accommodation policies to resolve a pregnancy discrimination charge that was investigated by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced last week. The settlement stems from a claim brought by a UPS driver who alleged that the company's refusal to provide light duty as an accommodation to pregnant workers violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA). The EEOC's investigation uncovered other incidents beyond the initial Charging Party where pregnant women were not given light duty or provided other accommodations, according to a statement from the EEOC.

The Commission said that, until 2015, UPS provided accommodations to workers injured on the job, those with driving restrictions and those with disabilities. However, the package delivery service did not provide accommodations to pregnant women.

Discrimination based on pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions, is a prohibited form of sex discrimination. While the Pregnancy Discrimination Act doesn't require accommodations per se, it does require that employers treat women affected by pregnancy or related medical conditions the same as non-pregnant applicants or employees who are similar in their ability or inability to work. Thus, if a company provides accommodations for health conditions other than pregnancy, it must provide equal treatment of pregnancy and health conditions related to pregnancy.

This means that pregnant workers must be provided with the same access to light duty that other employees receive. It also means that pregnant women cannot be excluded from light duty or denied it at a higher rate than other employees.

Read the EEOC’s Press Release Here.

Learn More: Pregnancy Discrimination Info

Employer Pays $200,000 to Settle Anti-Pregnancy Policy Case

A Tennessee caregiving company has agreed to pay $200,000 to settle a pregnancy bias lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

According to the EEOC's lawsuit, since at least 2010, the employer had required its female employees to sign a pregnancy policy during orientation. The policy provided that their employment terminated at the fifth month of pregnancy. The EEOC further alleged that the employer enforced its policy against multiple women by terminating them due to their pregnancy, despite their ability to effectively perform their job duties.

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act makes clear that bias against applicants or employees on the basis of childbirth, pregnancy, or related medical conditions constitutes illegal sex discrimination. Additionally, while pregnancy itself is not considered a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), conditions associated with pregnancy — including back pain, gestational diabetes, and pregnancy-induced high blood pressure — may be.

Pregnant employees who are able to continue performing their jobs must be permitted to do so. If a pregnant employee is temporarily unable to perform her job, she must be treated the same as any other temporarily disabled employee in terms of opportunities for modified work tasks, light duty, alternative assignments, disability leave or unpaid leave.

Learn more about pregnancy bias and pregnancy discrimination laws.