Employment Attorney Services' Blog

US Insurance Company to Settle Disability Discrimination after Cancelling a Job Offer

The United Insurance Company of America is facing a two–year consent decree and is required to pay monetary relief to resolve its disability discrimination lawsuit filed by EEOC in Aug. 2011 at the office of the US District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina after a due process.

In the said lawsuit, the EEOC claims that the insurance company cancelled its job offer to an applicant who was formerly a drug addict after learning about the applicant’s disability.

Craig Burns is a recovering drug addict and since 2004 has been enrolled in a methadone treatment program. In January 2010, the United Insurance offered Burns a job position in its office in Raleigh in the condition that Burns has to pass a drug test. However, Burns’ drug test results still showed a presence of methadone in his system. Burns submitted a letter of explanation to the United Insurance noting that he was participating in a supervised methadone treatment and is currently taking lawfully prescribed. The United Insurance just notified Burns that they are cancelling their job offer to Burns due to his non–eligibility.

Such conduct is considered as a violation to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Said act prohibits disability discrimination against employees and applicants.

In addition to the monetary relief amounting to $37,000, the United Insurance is required to conduct trainings regarding disability discrimination and to conduct an individualized assessment to determine if an employee or applicant is disabled under the provisions set by the ADA. Furthermore, like any other company who underwent settlements with the EEOC, the United Insurance Company is required to post a copy of its anti-discrimination policy at its head office in St. Louis, Missouri as a protocol.

People with disabilities should not be treated with discrimination, most particularly when it comes to hiring. Apart from the ADA, the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) also prohibits either private and government employers or agencies from discriminating employees based on their disabilities.

The different provisions regarding the disability law aim to protect applicant and employees with the defect against employer harassment. An employment law attorney could explain in detail each and every provisions set therein.

AT&T Faces Suit after Refusing to Accommodate Blind Worker

US' biggest telecommunications company, AT&T Inc., has faced lawsuit after refusing to grant accommodation to an employee who has gone blind, according to US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) reports on Thursday.

Reports said AT&T has refused to provide technological aid to a longtime worker who has gone blind from diabetes. The worker could have continued employment should the administration grant the special computer software request.

Miguel Melendez began working for Centennial de Puerto Rico Inc. as a switch technician in November 2001. He had a history of diabetes retinopathy, which led to blindness in November 2008. He then requested for technological aid until AT&T acquired the company in January 2010. The employer refused to grant accommodation, which caused Melendez to lose his job, reports said.

Reports said Melendez filed the complaint to EEOC, explaining that he should have continued his work if the computer applications were given.

The federal agency filed the disability discrimination in US District Court for Puerto Rico after initiating a conciliation process. EEOC is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of the aggrieved employee, reports said.

Failure to provide reasonable accommodation to a worker who has a disability is a violation of Title VII Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Employers have the responsibility to provide technological aid to assist blind employees in fulfilling their work duties. Depriving the disabled worker of this right violates his or her right to earn a living. 
The employer should have purchased the computer software especially if its cost will not cause undue hardship for the company. In this way, the employee could have overcome his disability and excel in his career.

The employer should have also thought the valuable contribution of an experienced employee can bring to the company.
  
Discriminating against blind workers pushes them into poverty instead of helping them become productive members of the society. This strains the community as well as the workforce, which needs skilled laborers regardless of physical limitations.

For more information on disability discrimination lawsuit, you may consult with an employment lawyer in Los Angeles. Your attorney will help you throughout the process of litigation. Dial 1-866-772-2889 or email us at eas@mesriani.com for a free case analysis.

Pregnant Worker Sues Employer for Discrimination

Firing an employee because she is pregnant is a violation of federal law and may cause the employer to face stringent penalties.

Consider the case of Greystar Management Services, L.P., which has faced lawsuit after terminating a pregnant worker. 

According to reports on Wednesday, Amada Lucero, housekeeper for Greystar, informed her superior that she is pregnant. The management responded by requiring her to present medical certificate and terminating her employment contract.

Lucero filed a complaint with US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) stating that though she was medically cleared to resume working with cleaning chemicals, the employer removed her from her post. She asserted that she had performed her job satisfactorily, and the termination was unfair, reports said

As stated in the lawsuit Lucero reported the misconduct to EEOC, in which the federal agency filed the lawsuit in US District Court of the District of Maryland. EEOC is seeking compensatory, punitive, and injunctive damages on behalf of the aggrieved employee.

Firing an employee just because she is pregnant is a violation of Title VII Civil Rights Act of 1964. Employers are prohibited from committing acts of discrimination against workers who have temporary disability or medical condition.

Employers also have the responsibility to provide accommodation to pregnant workers. Some examples are adjustment in work schedule and tasks to assist their pregnancy. Firing the pregnant employee is an act of discrimination and assaults her right to earn a living.

The employer should have discussed with the pregnant employee on how she can be assisted through her pregnancy instead of firing her. The employer should have also sought medical advice from the doctor on the safe levels of cleaning chemicals. In these ways, the employer has cleared his or her doubts on keeping a pregnant housekeeper.

For more information on pregnancy discrimination, you may consult with an
employment lawyer in Los Angeles. Your Labor attorney will help you go through the process of litigation.  Dial 1-866-772-2889 or email us at eas@mesriani.com for a free case analysis.

Diabetic Employee Sues Walgreens Management for Wrongful Termination

An employee with disability has filed a lawsuit against Walgreens management for wrongful termination, according to US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) website today.

Reports said Josefina Hernandez reported her employer misconduct to EEOC after Walgreens management fired her illegally.

As stated in the lawsuit, the aggrieved employee suffered a sudden attack of hypoglycemia (low blood sugar) while on duty. She reached for a $1.39 chips and paid for it after her cashier shift. Her employer fired her in response for the incident though her superiors knew about her disability.

Hernandez has worked for Walgreens San Francisco branch for 18 years and had no history of violation, reports said. 

The aggrieved employee reported the wrongful termination misconduct to EEOC, in which the federal agency filed the lawsuit in US District Court for the Northern District of California. The agency is seeking unspecified damages on behalf of the worker.

Walgreens has a nationwide drug store chain and has average $1.9 billion annual net earnings.

The employer should have not fired the employee with diabetes. The management could easily provide accommodation for the loyal employee to help her overcome her disability and fulfill job duties. Instead of firing her, the employer should have shown her ways to survive a next hypoglycemia attack. The experienced employee is sure worth than a $1.39- bag of chips.

Such employer violation will not escape the eyes of EEOC and will surely contend legal rights for the aggrieved employee. Disability Discrimination is a violation of Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964 and has corresponding penalties.

For more information on discrimination in the workplace, you may consult with an employment lawyer in California. Your attorney will guide you throughout the process of litigation. Dial 1-866-772-2889 or email us at eas@mesriani.com for a free case analysis.

Goodyear Charged with Discrimination for Firing a Worker with Bleeding Disorder

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company in Fayetteville has faced lawsuit after firing an employee with disability, according to Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) website today.

Alisha Adams has filed a complaint to EEOC after her employer fired her on the basis of her medical condition, according to reports,

As stated in the suit, Adams applied for tire builder position and was offered temporary employment. She disclosed to her employer that she has menorrhagia, a bleeding disorder. The management then required her to submit medical clearances from two doctors, in which she was able to pass.

Adams reported to work on January 31, and disclosed her disability to her supervisor three weeks after. Her superior then started to hurl accusations that she was limited in remaining conscious at work. Her employer responded by terminating her employment contract, reports said.

The aggrieved employee reported the misconduct to EEOC, in which the agency filed the disability discrimination lawsuit in US District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. EEOC is seeking unspecified damages on behalf of the aggrieved employee.

Discriminating against employees with disability is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). It provides protection to workers against discrimination on the basis of medical condition or impairment. It mandates employers to provide reasonable accommodation to help employees with disabilities in fulfilling their job duties.

The employer should have not fired the worker based on the unsubstantial complaints from the supervisor. Adams should have given accommodation instead to help her complete her tasks. More so, the employer should have let Adams provide medical documents that can prove her “fit to work” status.

Disability discrimination occurs even in top notch companies such as Goodyear. However, no matter how rich such employer is, the EEOC can assert legal rights on behalf of aggrieved employees.

For more information on disability discrimination, you may consult with a Labor lawyer in Los Angeles. Your lawyer will guide you throughout the process of litigation. Dial 1-866-772-2889 or email us at eas@mesriani.com for a free case analysis.

Presidential Order on Fair Hiring: A Boost to Anti-Discrimination Efforts

Reminiscent of FDR’s employment effort during the 40’s, President Barack  Obama’s signing of an order on fair hiring process in the federal workplace is a positive step toward enhancing government’s effort to stave off unemployment at the same time remain faithful to anti-discrimination policies of the government.

As mentioned in an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) statement, the order requires federal officials to uphold equal employment opportunity in government and promote inclusion of diverse workforce in various federal agencies. Further, the new order is also expected to strengthen efforts to ensure fair hiring, retention, and promotion process in government offices as part of the Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Project.

Despite efforts like this, discrimination in hiring and employment still persist in the workplace. According to EEOC statistics, the number of discrimination cases was higher in 2010 compared to the previous year and continues to increase. In fact, nearly 99, 992 discrimination cases were filed at the EEOC during that period.

Federal and state anti-discrimination laws protect workers from various discriminatory acts in the workplace, which are mainly based on issues such as race, gender, age, religion, national origin, and disability, among others.

Reducing the number of discrimination and harassment cases may involve the cooperative efforts of both employer and employees. This includes awareness of the law and sustained efforts by employers through training and implementation of policies.

If you are a victim of discrimination and harassment at the workplace, you can consult with experienced Los Angeles employment and labor law attorneys. Call us now  at 866 722 2889 for a free case evaluation.

J.A. Thomas & Associates Face Labor Suit after Rejecting a Disabled Worker

Employees with disability are entitled to reasonable accommodation for them to perform their duties well.

Employers are mandated to provide this assistance to help workers fulfill their tasks despite their medical condition.

Take the case of a double amputee worker in J.A. Thomas & Associates firm in Georgia who was illegally terminated and denied of rehire due to her medical condition.

According to reports, the worker requested a work-from-home status in accommodation for her disability. She claimed that she has difficulty of commuting from Georgia to Michigan to report to office each day. She also pointed out the availability of medical aid at home which can enable her to attend to her physical limitation.

The employer offered her an option to relocate in Smyrna, Georgia, instead of working at home. When the woman declined, the employer compelled her to resign, reports said.

Reports said the employer eventually made the post open for home-based. The woman inquired on re-hire, but was told that her impairment made the employer choose another candidate.

The discriminated worker reported the misconduct to US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The federal agency then filed the lawsuit in US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. EEOC has sought damages on behalf of the victim.

Under Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964, it is illegal to discriminate against employees with disability. Furthermore, employers are prohibited from terminating or refusing to hire a worker on the basis of his or her medical condition. Employers are also required to provide reasonable accommodation to the employee. Failure to fulfill such obligations carries legal consequences.

Employers must be careful when making employment decisions on the basis of one’s impairment or physical limitation. Compelling the worker to resign due to his or her disability can be classified as wrongful termination. Rejecting the employee’s request for accommodation and re-hire is a double violation of labor law.

This employee is just one of the many people who have been fired or denied of employment opportunity because of their disability. The number of discrimination cases may increase the following months as employers become pickier when hiring candidates during this fiscally-troubled year.

For more information on disability discrimination lawsuits, you may consult with an employment lawyer in California. Your labor attorney will guide you throughout the process of litigation. Dial 1-866-772-2889 or email us at eas@mesriani.com for a free case analysis.

Verizon to Pay $20 Million for Disability Discrimination Suit

What is $20 million for a billion-dollar company?

Just like a charity donation.

If this is how $20 million looks like for Verizon Communications executives, aggrieved employees can't help but wonder how they can't spare some money for leave benefits.

Recently, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has represented a huge number of Verizon disabled employees. The federal agency filed a lawsuit against the telecommunications giant after discovering its failure to accommodate disabled workers.

According to reports, EEOC has alleged that the 24 subsidiaries of Verizon implemented "no fault" attendance policies that caused negative employment effect to disabled employees. Verizon compelled the workers to meet a maximum number of "chargeable absences" and face disciplinary consequences if the policy is violated.

Moreover, employees who have needed extended leave for medical treatment were either suspended or terminated.

The EEOC filed the lawsuit in US District Court in Maryland. The Verizon Communications then cooperated in a conciliation with EEOC and assented to pay $20 million as settlement sum for the employees the same day. The employer also promised to abide with EEOC regulations like posting employee anti-discrimination rights, revising the company policies, conducting training, and reporting similar cases.

If Verizon can pay $20 million in a day, why would its executives have to wait for a lawsuit just to correct its bad employment practices? The $20 million could have been earlier allocated for the extended leave benefits of disabled employees. More so, the money could have been added to the health insurance of workers needing prenatal or postnatal care. 

Perhaps Verizon executives realized that their attendance policies really have failed to reasonably accommodate employees with disabilities.

Under Title VII Civil Rights Act, employees with impairment or medical condition are entitled to receive reasonable accommodation. Employers who disregard such law can face stringent penalties and legal consequences.

For more information on disability discrimination, you may consult with an employment attorney in California. Dial our toll free number at 1-866-772-2889, or email us at eas@mesriani.com for a free case analysis.

Finish Line Inc. To Pay $38,000 for Disability Discrimination Lawsuit

Who says an impaired employee can't be a frontline officer for athletic clothes?

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently affirms that an employee with disability can perform customer related duties.

On Thursday, the EEOC has asked Finish Line Inc., an athletic apparel retailer, to pay $38,000 as damages for a disability discrimination lawsuit filed on behalf of an employee.

According to reports, Emma Armon complained of Finish Line's failure to accommodate her request to transfer to Customer Service Representative (CSR) position.

She narrated how her employer refused to grant her request due to her right shoulder injury. Her superior insisted that she remain working at the warehouse department, though qualified for the CSR post.

The EEOC initiated mediation and Finish Line assented to pay damages and comply with discrimination regulations.

According to Title VII Civil Rights Act, it is illegal to discriminate employees on the basis of disability. Also, employers are required to provide reasonable accommodation to aid workers on fulfilling job duties. Failure to fulfill such responsibility can cause legal consequences.

Employees who qualify for a frontline position must be given equal opportunity and consideration. Even employees with disabilities can perform essential duties of a frontline “athletic” officer.

For more information on disability discrimination, you may consult with a Labor lawyer in Los Angeles. Your attorney will guide you throughout the legal process.  You may
dial our toll free number at 1-866-772-2889, or email us at eas@mesriani.com for free case analysis.


Employment Leave as Reasonable Accommodation for Disabled Persons

Under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), reasonable accommodation is referred to as “any adjustments or modifications made to enable disabled persons to participate in the application process or to perform essential functions”.

Some of the common modifications or adjustments may include the following:

•    Acquiring or modifying equipment
•    Job restructuring
•    Making existing facilities accessible
•    Modified work schedule or part-time schedule
•    Changing test, training materials or policies
•    Providing qualified readers or interpreters
•    Reassignment to a vacant position

However, reasonable accommodation may not only include “physical modifications” such putting ramps or giving special equipment to disabled employees.

Recently, EEOC officials, together with experts, representatives of employees and employers met to discuss and explore the possibility of including the use of leave as reasonable accommodation for disabled people.

In a statement release in its website, EEOC Chair Jacqueline Berrien said the agency welcomes the opportunity to learn the effects of this proposal to employers and employers in practical terms.

Berrien added that the reasonable accommodation often allowed by employers include only the period of leave for medical treatment, recovery, or training to use adaptive equipment.

Under ADA, employment leaves can be used as reasonable accommodation provided it does not cause “undue hardship” to the employer. These include those leaves which are beyond the employer’s permitted number of days off.

During the meeting, some EEOC officials also raised the issues often encountered by employers when employees use their leave and the employer does not allow it by having policies such as no fault leave. The EEOC said this must be modified as reasonable accommodation if a disabled employee needs additional leave.

Workers and employees are entitled to employment leaves and other benefits under both federal and state employment laws.

If you have issues regarding leaves and other employment benefits, you need to consult with an experienced California employment and labor attorney. You may dial our toll free number at 1-866-772-2889, or email us at eas@mesriani.com for free case analysis.