Employers often must balance the mandates of seemingly competing directives. A challenging example arises in the area of possible mental impairment. An employer may hear concerns that an employee is acting abnormally, or has hinted at a desire to hurt herself, or is exhibiting other possible signs of mental impairment. The employer does not wish to stereotype the employee unfairly, or unlawfully “regard” the employee as disabled; yet, the employer also must ensure a safe work environment for other employees and others on the premises.
Continue Reading Mental Impairments: When Can an Employer Require a Fitness-for-Duty Exam?
Can Employer Require Impaired Employee to Take Medication?
The EEOC says no. In a recent case, the EEOC filed suit against a paper company in Michigan over this issue. The employee had a seizure at work and was diagnosed with epilepsy. After a period of leave, the employee was released to return to work by his physician.
Continue Reading Can Employer Require Impaired Employee to Take Medication?
Supreme Court Revives Pregnancy Discrimination Case
Is the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Young v. United Parcel Service, here, a limited ruling, applicable only in the context of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA)? Or, does the decision ring in a whole new (and less employer-friendly) era in discrimination case law? It is too early to tell. Allow this explanation for why.
The Supreme Court ruled that UPS may have violated the PDA by not providing a temporary light duty assignment to a pregnant driver who was on temporary, pregnancy-related restrictions. But the Court found that neither party was entitled to their desired interpretation of the PDA.
Continue Reading Supreme Court Revives Pregnancy Discrimination Case
EEOC Continues Attack on Employer Practices that “Automatically” Disqualify
A trucking company has a practice of not returning any trucker to a driver position if that trucker has admitted to being an alcoholic, even if the trucker completes a treatment program. The EEOC sued on behalf of a trucker and challenged this practice. In this instance, however, the trucker did not complete a treatment program. He explained that he did not complete a program since it would be futile – he could not get his job back anyway.
In a recent ruling, a District Judge in Arkansas ruled that the trucking company’s practice of automatic disqualification of the alcoholic trucker violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). The Court ruled that a jury will have to decide the merits of the specific driver’s claim, but the Court entered an injunction against the trucking company from further use of its practice. EEOC v. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc. (W.D. Ark. June 24, 2013) found here.
Continue Reading EEOC Continues Attack on Employer Practices that “Automatically” Disqualify
Requiring Employee to Seek Counseling May Violate ADA
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits a covered employer from requiring an employee to undergo a “medical examination,” unless the examination is shown to be job-related and consistent with business necessity. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that an employer’s demand that an employee seek psychological counseling as a condition of continued employment may constitute a violation of the ADA.
In Kroll v White Lake Ambulance Authority, Case No. 10-2348 (6th Cir. 2012), the plaintiff, Emily Kroll, was an Emergency Medical Technician for White Lake Ambulance Authority (WLAA). She had an affair with a married co-worker and began to exhibit stress and anger at work. Several co-workers expressed to management concern for her well-being. On one occasion, while transporting a patient in emergency status, she was screaming at someone on her telephone. WLAA questioned whether Kroll could perform her job safely and told her that she must attend counseling in order to continue working. There was a dispute whether WLAA required that the counseling be psychological in nature. Kroll refused to seek counseling and did not return to work at WLAA.
Continue Reading Requiring Employee to Seek Counseling May Violate ADA
Termination Notice Referring to Disability Considered Direct Evidence of Discrimination
A Tennessee federal judge recently ruled that a termination notice referring to an employee’s “long-term disability” was direct evidence of discrimination and retaliation. The Court granted the employee judgment as a matter of law under the ADA.
The employee, Coffman, had been off work on an extended medical leave. She had exhausted her FMLA leave and remained off work due to restrictions. Coffman refused a job offer of a sedentary job. Notes from Coffman’s physician indicated that the refusal was unreasonable, but the employer did not obtain those notes until after it had fired Coffman. At the time, the Company accepted her refusal of the sedentary job and kept her on leave.
Continue Reading Termination Notice Referring to Disability Considered Direct Evidence of Discrimination
ADA Developments – “How Much Leave Is Required?” Is the Wrong Question
Based on recent developments, employers wonder how much leave is really required under the ADA. It seems that employers with even generous policies and practices have run afoul of the EEOC either in individualized cases, or, worse yet, in class claims.
Most recently, Verizon Communications Inc. settled for a record $20 million payout based on EEOC allegations that Verizon’s no-fault attendance policies did not adequately provide for an individualized assessment of an employee’s condition. The EEOC has been focusing on such “no-fault attendance” and “maximum leave” policies.
How much leave is required, however, is not the correct question. The better question is: “What must be included in the employer’s process of evaluating an employee’s need for leave?”
Compliance with the ADA is often a “process driven” evaluation. How you do something is almost as important as what you do.
Continue Reading ADA Developments – “How Much Leave Is Required?” Is the Wrong Question