Title VII Posting Violation Penalties Increase 150% Effective July 1, 2016

The EEOC has increased the maximum penalty for employers that violate the posting provisions of Title VII, the Americans with Disability Act ("ADA") and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act ("GINA") from $210 to $525 per violation, more than doubling the prior penalty amount. They state the increase is due to inflation and the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015. The increase goes into effect July 1, 2016. The last increase was in 2014 but this increase is the largest increase in history. More ›

EEOC Issues Final Regulations on Wellness Programs

Employers who provide employees with incentives to encourage healthy behavior must contend with an alphabet soup of federal law — ERISA, GINA, HIPAA, the ACA, the ADA, just to name a few. Earlier this week, the EEOC weighed in and finalized its latest guidance on how employer wellness programs should be structured. These final regulations largely adopt the proposed regulations that were issued in 2015. More ›

Employee’s Inability to Meet Job’s Attendance Requirements Divests Her of ADA Protections Sixth Circuit Holds

The converging paths of the Family Medical Leave Act's (FMLA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) ranks among the most difficult legal issues for employers to safely traverse. Employers should think twice before terminating an employee who cannot return to work after 12 weeks of FMLA leave. This is because courts across the country have held that additional leave may be a necessary reasonable accommodation under the ADA. The question then becomes, how much additional leave does one need to provide an employee before he or she is no longer protected by the ADA. More ›

Seventh Circuit Reiterates Standard for Establishing Substantial Limitation on the Ability to Work

It goes without saying that an employee cannot prevail on a disability discrimination claim unless he is actually disabled. In the context of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), this means that he must show that a disability “substantially limits” one or more of his “major life activities.”  Predictably, plaintiffs often allege that the “major life activity” that their disability has impacted is the activity of “working." Thus, an important question for employers is this: when does a disability actually limit an employee’s ability to work? More ›

11th Circuit Upholds bar on Claims by Jail Officer with Cancer

The 11th Circuit recently held that an officer at a county jail in Florida who was undergoing treatment for cancer cannot proceed with her Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") claim because she failed to identify a reasonable accommodation that would allow her to perform the essential functions of an available position. More ›

Applying for Other jobs kills an Employee's Stress-related Reasonable Accommodation Claim

A Southern District of Texas court recently issued an opinion which shows that an employee may take actions during a leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) which preclude any future reasonable accommodation claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). In Adetimehin v. Healix Infusion Therapy, Inc., the plaintiff failed to show she was disabled under the ADA because her medical provider's recommendation and her own actions negated her claim that her disability substantially limited the major life activity of working. Specifically, she had applied for other full-time jobs at the same time she was requesting an extended leave of absence as a reasonable accommodation from her employer. More ›

Court Shoots down ADA Discrimination Claim Premised on Employer's Alleged Embarrassment

It would never occur to most employers that "embarrassment" could serve as the grounds for a disability discrimination claim, but that's exactly what an employee attempted to argue in Lester v. City of Lafayette. In this case, a federal district court judge rejected a former city employee's argument that she was fired because officials from the City of Lafayette, Colorado (the "City") were embarrassed by her disabled daughter.  More ›

First Circuit Confirms Importance of Good Faith Interactive Process

The First Circuit Court of Appeals has given us yet another case demonstrating the importance of not only engaging in the interactive process, but doing so in good faith.

In Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., No. 14-1268 (1st Cir. December 19, 2014), the employee, Pamela Manning worked a fairly predictable schedule as a sales associate. Later, the store restructured its staffing system which led to Manning's scheduled hours becoming more unpredictable. She therefore informed her supervisor that she could not work erratic shifts because it aggravated her diabetes, and subsequently brought in a doctor's note to that effect, requesting a predictable day shift. More ›

Employer's "Super Policy" Against Harassment Requires Employer to Protect Employee Beyond that Which is Required by Law

A Costco employee suffered from Tourette's syndrome and made complaints to management about the way his supervisors and others were treating him. He later filed charges with the Connecticut Human Rights Organization as well as suit in federal district court, claiming that he was subjected to a hostile work environment and retaliation in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and corresponding state statutes. He also claimed breach of contract and promissory estoppel.  More ›

Sixth Circuit Discusses ADA and Work Related Medical Exams Involving Psychological Issues

At some point in time, most employers or managers face a situation where an employee exhibits odd or off-putting behaviors, or behaviors that suggest the possibility that an employee could harm herself or other persons at the workplace. Navigating the maze of potential proactive and reactive measures to take has never been easy, and not much case law on the topic exists, especially outside the sphere of public safety positions in fire and police departments. Moreover, the EEOC has not specifically updated its March 25, 1997 Guidance on the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and Psychiatric Disabilities, other than noting that the 2008 amendments to the ADA change how the Act defines "disability." This state of affairs provides little direction or comfort to employers. Those who review the cited EEOC Guidance can also fairly say that the discussions contained in the Guidance can at times raise more questions than they answer. More ›