The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that hospitals do not have to reduce a doctors’ patient load as a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
When Frank Shin, a medical intern, began making serious medical errors, his supervisors reduced his patient load and began to “shadow” him, which placed a burden on the supervisors and other interns at the hospital.
Because of the ongoing difficulties, Shin was recommended to submit to a mental health evaluation and was diagnosed with attention deficit disorder. When medication and rehabilitation did not improve his job performance he requested that the hospital reduce his patient load and provide an on-call nurse practitioner as accommodations. When the hospital refused and terminated Shin, he filed suit, alleging a failure to accommodate him on the basis of a disability.
A district court ruled in favor of the hospital and Shin appealed. Because Shin was not able to perform the job’s essential functions with or without accommodations, a prerequisite to filing an ADA claim, the court never addressed whether the interns ADD qualified as a disability under the law.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Monday, March 29, 2010
Employee Discrimination Claims Hit Record High in 2009
Last year the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) won $294 million on behalf of employees in back wages on behalf of employee claimants, a record high. It also collected another $82 million from complaints that actually made it to court.
According to the EEOC’s recent annual report, the number of pregnancy-discrimination claims jumped more than 30 percent since 2005, compared to almost 24 percent increase in all job bias claims.
In 2009, the EEOC received 93,277 complaints. Nearly a quarter of those complaints were claims of disability discrimination. The numbers of disability complaints are expected to continue to rise now that the definition of disability has been broadened under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
According to the EEOC’s recent annual report, the number of pregnancy-discrimination claims jumped more than 30 percent since 2005, compared to almost 24 percent increase in all job bias claims.
In 2009, the EEOC received 93,277 complaints. Nearly a quarter of those complaints were claims of disability discrimination. The numbers of disability complaints are expected to continue to rise now that the definition of disability has been broadened under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
US Labor Department announces updated model notices
The U.S. Department of Labor has released new model COBRA notices incorporating the extension of eligibility for COBRA premium assistance. The Temporary Extension Act of 2010 extended the date for incurring an involuntary termination of employment that qualifies for the COBRA premium subsidy to March 31, 2010.
The Act expanded eligibility for COBRA premium subsidy assistance to certain individuals who have a reduction in hours on or after Sept. 1, 2008, followed by an involuntary termination of employment between March 2, 2010, and March 31, 2010. The model COBRA notices offer guidance on issues relating to the COBRA subsidy provisions for these individuals, including:
Certain current and former plan participants and beneficiaries must be notified about the availability of COBRA premium assistance. Plans should update existing COBRA notices to comply with changes to the subsidy requirements made by the law. Individuals who received a COBRA election notice that did not include information about the law’s changes to the COBRA subsidy rules are required to receive information about the changes.
The model notice packages are available for download from EBSA's dedicated COBRA Web page at http://www.dol.gov/cobra. The page also contains an updated fact sheet to help dislocated workers, their families and employers understand the requirements.
Bills have been introduced in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate to further extend the COBRA subsidy provisions.
The Act expanded eligibility for COBRA premium subsidy assistance to certain individuals who have a reduction in hours on or after Sept. 1, 2008, followed by an involuntary termination of employment between March 2, 2010, and March 31, 2010. The model COBRA notices offer guidance on issues relating to the COBRA subsidy provisions for these individuals, including:
- An updated model general notice.
- A model new election period notice.
- A model extended election period notice.
- A model supplemental information notice.
- An updated model alternative notice.
Certain current and former plan participants and beneficiaries must be notified about the availability of COBRA premium assistance. Plans should update existing COBRA notices to comply with changes to the subsidy requirements made by the law. Individuals who received a COBRA election notice that did not include information about the law’s changes to the COBRA subsidy rules are required to receive information about the changes.
The model notice packages are available for download from EBSA's dedicated COBRA Web page at http://www.dol.gov/cobra. The page also contains an updated fact sheet to help dislocated workers, their families and employers understand the requirements.
Bills have been introduced in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate to further extend the COBRA subsidy provisions.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Administaff to Pay $115,000 for Religious Bias
BALTIMORE – Administaff, Inc., a nationwide company which provides full-service human resources to small and medium-size businesses will pay $115,000 and furnish substantial remedial relief to settle a harassment lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
According to EEOC’s suit, Texas-based Administaff and Conn-X, LLC, a Florida-based cable service provider, violated federal law by engaging in religious discrimination against employees at Conn-X’s Edgewood, Md., office.
Scott Jacobson and Joey Jacobson, who are brothers, were called “dirty Jew,” “dumb Jew,” and other anti-Semitic slurs by managers and coworkers because of their religion, Judaism. The harassment began in September 2005 and continued for a couple of years and included the defacing of Scott Jacobson’s work vehicle with a swastika symbol, according to the EEOC. Jacobson was also physically harassed when he was forced into a trash bin for the amusement of managers who observed them on a work surveillance camera and called it “throw the Jew in the dumpster.” The EEOC’s lawsuit against Conn-X, LLC remains unresolved.
In addition to the monetary relief to the Jacobsons, the consent decree settling the suit enjoins Administaff, Inc. from engaging in harassment on the basis of religion and from retaliating against employees who complain about it. The employer agreed to revise its policy against harassment and retaliation, provide training to its managers on anti-discrimination laws, and to post notices stating its commitment to maintaining an environment free of religious harassment and retaliation.
According to EEOC’s suit, Texas-based Administaff and Conn-X, LLC, a Florida-based cable service provider, violated federal law by engaging in religious discrimination against employees at Conn-X’s Edgewood, Md., office.
Scott Jacobson and Joey Jacobson, who are brothers, were called “dirty Jew,” “dumb Jew,” and other anti-Semitic slurs by managers and coworkers because of their religion, Judaism. The harassment began in September 2005 and continued for a couple of years and included the defacing of Scott Jacobson’s work vehicle with a swastika symbol, according to the EEOC. Jacobson was also physically harassed when he was forced into a trash bin for the amusement of managers who observed them on a work surveillance camera and called it “throw the Jew in the dumpster.” The EEOC’s lawsuit against Conn-X, LLC remains unresolved.
In addition to the monetary relief to the Jacobsons, the consent decree settling the suit enjoins Administaff, Inc. from engaging in harassment on the basis of religion and from retaliating against employees who complain about it. The employer agreed to revise its policy against harassment and retaliation, provide training to its managers on anti-discrimination laws, and to post notices stating its commitment to maintaining an environment free of religious harassment and retaliation.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Imagine Schools to Pay $570,000 to Settle EEOC Pregnancy Discrimination Lawsuit
KANSAS CITY - Imagine Schools, Inc., a nationwide operator of charter schools, will pay $570,000 to settle a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
The suit charged that Imagine Schools discriminated when it chose not to retain two pregnant employees after closing its charter middle school in Kansas City, Mo., and opening a private middle and high school, Renaissance Academy, at the same location. The lawsuit claimed that the company did not rehire LuShonda Smith, an office manager, and Charity Brooks, an administrative assistant, to work at the new school because they were pregnant.
In addition to requiring $570,000 in back pay, emotional distress damages, and attorneys’ fees, the two-year consent decree, which must be approved by the court, requires the nationwide charter school company to disseminate a policy on pregnancy discrimination, provide management training on such discrimination, report internal discrimination complaints to the EEOC, and prominently post a notice regarding employee rights under federal anti-discrimination laws enforced by the agency.
The suit charged that Imagine Schools discriminated when it chose not to retain two pregnant employees after closing its charter middle school in Kansas City, Mo., and opening a private middle and high school, Renaissance Academy, at the same location. The lawsuit claimed that the company did not rehire LuShonda Smith, an office manager, and Charity Brooks, an administrative assistant, to work at the new school because they were pregnant.
In addition to requiring $570,000 in back pay, emotional distress damages, and attorneys’ fees, the two-year consent decree, which must be approved by the court, requires the nationwide charter school company to disseminate a policy on pregnancy discrimination, provide management training on such discrimination, report internal discrimination complaints to the EEOC, and prominently post a notice regarding employee rights under federal anti-discrimination laws enforced by the agency.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Olsten Staffing Services to Pay $75,000 To Settle EEOC Disability Discrimination Suit
MADISON, Wis. – Olsten Staffing Services Corp., a nationwide temporary employment agency, will pay $75,000 to settle a disability discrimination suit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
The EEOC charged that Melville, N.Y.-based Olsten violated the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) by refusing to refer a deaf job applicant for temporary employment as a production worker at Main Street Ingredients, a La Crosse, Wis., food products manufacturer. The EEOC said that on two occasions, a staffing specialist at Olsten’s La Crosse office decided not to refer the applicant to Main Street because he is deaf, despite his meeting all the actual qualifications for the job.
EEOC Chicago District Director John Rowe, who managed the federal agency’s pre-suit investigation, said that e-mails obtained by the EEOC showed that Olsten’s staffing specialist had flagged the applicant’s disability as a “concern.” Rowe said that when the staffing specialist was later asked by the applicant why he did not get the job, the specialist falsely attributed the decision to concerns expressed by Main Street, when in fact Main Street had not expressed such concerns. Evidence obtained by the EEOC indicated that hearing ability was not a requirement of the food production job at Main Street; in fact, according to Rowe, workplace noise required a number of employees there to wear ear protection that prevented them from hearing while working.
The ADA requires that temporary employment agencies evaluate job applicants with disabilities on the basis of their ability to perform, with or without reasonable accommodation, the essential functions of the jobs for which they are being considered. The ADA prohibits such agencies from declining to refer a qualified individual because of his disability. Moreover, if an agency has reason to believe that one of its clients is discriminating against one of the agency’s temporary employees in any phase of the employment relationship (including hiring and referral), the agency has an affirmative obligation under the law to take reasonable steps within its control to remedy that discrimination.
The EEOC charged that Melville, N.Y.-based Olsten violated the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) by refusing to refer a deaf job applicant for temporary employment as a production worker at Main Street Ingredients, a La Crosse, Wis., food products manufacturer. The EEOC said that on two occasions, a staffing specialist at Olsten’s La Crosse office decided not to refer the applicant to Main Street because he is deaf, despite his meeting all the actual qualifications for the job.
EEOC Chicago District Director John Rowe, who managed the federal agency’s pre-suit investigation, said that e-mails obtained by the EEOC showed that Olsten’s staffing specialist had flagged the applicant’s disability as a “concern.” Rowe said that when the staffing specialist was later asked by the applicant why he did not get the job, the specialist falsely attributed the decision to concerns expressed by Main Street, when in fact Main Street had not expressed such concerns. Evidence obtained by the EEOC indicated that hearing ability was not a requirement of the food production job at Main Street; in fact, according to Rowe, workplace noise required a number of employees there to wear ear protection that prevented them from hearing while working.
The ADA requires that temporary employment agencies evaluate job applicants with disabilities on the basis of their ability to perform, with or without reasonable accommodation, the essential functions of the jobs for which they are being considered. The ADA prohibits such agencies from declining to refer a qualified individual because of his disability. Moreover, if an agency has reason to believe that one of its clients is discriminating against one of the agency’s temporary employees in any phase of the employment relationship (including hiring and referral), the agency has an affirmative obligation under the law to take reasonable steps within its control to remedy that discrimination.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
City of Detroit to Pay $100,000 to Employee Who Complained About Coworkers Perfume
Susan McBride sued the City of Detroit, complaining she couldn’t work due to a colleague’s perfume, and has been awarded $100,000. McBride claimed she had a chemical sensitivity and the smells of perfume and room deodorizers made it difficult for her to breathe and caused migraines and nausea.
The City of Detroit is now alerting employees to not wear scented products, including perfume, cologne, aftershave, and deodorant and warning against the use of candles and air fresheners in the workplace.
The City of Detroit is now alerting employees to not wear scented products, including perfume, cologne, aftershave, and deodorant and warning against the use of candles and air fresheners in the workplace.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
The Buckle, manager face sexual harassment lawsuit
CHARLESTON, SC – The Buckle and one of its managers are being sued by two former employees in separate lawsuits claiming they were sexually harassed.
Samantha White and Simona Southall claim their manager, Dave Whitfield, made unwelcome sexual advances and made requests for sexual favors. They also claim that the Buckle did not satisfactorily investigate their claims of sexual harassment. The lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages.
Some companies pressure employees to lobby legislators - The Denver Post
EPS President, Denise Kay, Esq., was quoted in an article about political activism in the workplace. Check it out: Some companies pressure employees to lobby legislators.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)