Tag Archives: “EEOC’

Can You Be “Regarded as” Disabled Based on a Potential Future Disability?

This certainly sounds futuristic. (Pun intended.) Still, in a case just decided by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, EEOC v. STME, LLC, the EEOC espoused precisely this position. The EEOC sued STME for disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act on behalf of Kimberly Lowe, a former STME massage therapist. Lowe was not … Continue Reading

Ninth Circuit Dodges the Question of Whether Morbid Obesity is an “Impairment” Under the ADA; EEOC Says Yes

On August 20, 2019, the Ninth Circuit dodged answering the question of whether morbid obesity is a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act. In Valtierra v. Medtronic Inc., No. 17-15282, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant, but came short of joining the Second, Sixth, … Continue Reading

Alabama Court Decides an Individual with a Partially Amputated Foot is not Disabled Under the ADA

The ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA) made a number of significant changes to the definition of “disability.” Much of the change had to do with making it easier for an individual to establish that he or she has a disability within the meaning of the statute.  As a result employers have been accepting many … Continue Reading

Appellate Court Holds that ADA Does Not Require Reassignment Without Competition

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) suffered a setback in its attempt to establish that the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) requires an employer to reassign an employee to an available position without having to compete with other candidates for that position.  In EEOC v. St. Joseph’s Hospital, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held … Continue Reading

EEOC Explains ADA Interference – Employers Take Note

On August 25, 2016, the EEOC issued its Enforcement Guidance on Retaliation and Related Issues. In addition to outlining expanded definitions of “opposition” and “participation” activity with respect to retaliation claims, the EEOC also addressed section 503(b) of the ADA.  Section 503(b) makes it unlawful to “coerce, intimidate, threaten or interfere” with an individual who … Continue Reading

EEOC Reports Record Number of Discrimination Charges; ADA Charges Are Fastest Growing Category

The EEOC reported a record number of private sector discrimination charges filed in FY 2010, nearly reaching the 100,000 mark.  99,922 charges were filed in FY 2010, an increase of 6,645 (7%) from FY 2009. The most frequently filed charges were retaliation (36%), race discrimination (35.9%), and sex discrimination (29.1%). Disability discrimination charges increased more … Continue Reading

Excusing Absences as a Reasonable Accommodation–Part 2

 The "law" or "lore" requiring employers to accommodate employees by excusing absence has reshaped employer attendance and productivity expectations.  Some say the law, as interpreted by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, goes too far and creates an elusive and unworkable standard for managing employee attendance and productivity.  To assist our clients and contacts in separating … Continue Reading

MEET GINA: IN CASUAL CONVERSATION, KEEP IT GENERAL TO KEEP IT LAWFUL

We posted recently about GINA’s prohibiting an employer from “actively” listening to conversations between colleagues in which they discuss their genetic information, including family medical history, and how it will limit an employer’s internet searches of applicants and employees. Add casual conversations, sometimes referred to as "water cooler" conversation, to the list of workplace activities curtailed by GINA. … Continue Reading

A Case of Incompatible Reasonable Accommodations

 Talk about a reasonable accommodation challenge. What is an employer to do when its accommodation of one employee’s medical condition triggers another employee’s medical condition? The New York Times reported recently that the City of Indianapolis faced such a situation recently and is now facing an EEOC “failure to accommodate” charge.  According to the Times … Continue Reading
LexBlog