Category: Disability Discrimination

Posted on

Pregnancy Discrimination, Retaliation for Reporting Discrimination Settles for $73k

Pregnancy discrimination accommodations.

In a recent incident that has understandably sparked significant public concern, White Pine Senior Living, an assisted living facility in Minnesota, is facing serious allegations of pregnancy discrimination. This lawsuit brings to light the painful experience of a pregnant employee who, after receiving a well-deserved promotion, found herself in a distressing situation at work that ultimately forced her to resign. In an effort to address these serious issues, White Pine Senior Living has come to a settlement agreement of $73,000 and committed to implementing important changes to improve its workplace environment.

This troubling situation began when a dedicated female employee, celebrated for her hard work and promoted for her achievements, disclosed her pregnancy. Sadly, she was met not with support but with intimidation from her manager, who threatened her with demotion and subjected her to unwarranted scrutiny of her performance. When she bravely reported the discriminatory behavior, she faced retaliation through negative performance reviews that threatened her job security. The unjust pressure from management to hire a replacement only added to her distress, as they unfoundedly assumed that her pregnancy would affect her reliability.

Such treatment is not only deeply troubling but also a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which protects employees from discrimination based on sex, including pregnancy. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act, an important amendment to Title VII, specifically aims to safeguard the rights of pregnant employees against such unjust treatment. Under these laws, pregnant employees must be treated fairly and equitably, and cannot face discrimination in any aspect of their employment, including hiring, promotions, job assignments, and benefits.

If you or someone you care about has experienced pregnancy discrimination, it’s crucial to take action promptly. Reporting these incidents is key to protecting your rights and preventing further harm. Victims of pregnancy discrimination can easily share their experiences through a dedicated reporting form. By speaking out, you not only advocate for your own rights but also contribute to creating a more equitable and supportive workplace for everyone.

Posted on

Racial & Disability Discrimination in McColl Police Department

Police departments plagued by race, disability, sex discrimination too. Seek representation by discrimination lawyers Helmer Friedman LLP.

Discrimination Lawsuit Against McColl Police Department: A Story of Courage and Accountability

Allegations of discrimination, retaliation, and an abuse of power have emerged from the Town of McColl, igniting a significant federal lawsuit that promises to expose systemic issues within its police leadership. Xzavier Williams, the former Chief of Police, has bravely stepped forward to level grave charges of racial and disability discrimination, shedding light on the often-overlooked challenges faced by African American officers and individuals living with disabilities in law enforcement.

This case serves as a crucial reminder of the pressing need for accountability within institutions, highlighting the importance of promoting a fair and inclusive workplace for all. Through an exploration of the lawsuit’s allegations, legal ramifications, and ethical considerations, this article aims to delve into the depths of this compelling narrative.

 

The Background of Xzavier Williams’ Lawsuit

Xzavier Williams, an African American law enforcement professional, held the position of Chief of Police in McColl from November 2022 until June 2023. Hired by the late Mayor George Garner and the McColl Town Council, Williams found himself ensnared in a whirlwind of harassment, excessive micromanagement, and ultimately, unjust termination. The lawsuit contends that Williams’ firing was not rooted in legitimate job performance concerns, but rather stemmed from racial bias, disability discrimination, and retaliation for refusing to engage in unethical practices demanded by the mayor.

 

Events Leading to Termination

The lawsuit details a troubling sequence of events during Williams’ tenure, illuminating the challenges he faced:

  • Micromanagement and Harassment:

    Despite his significant authority, Williams encountered a relentless onslaught of scrutiny that stifled his ability to lead effectively.

  • Disability Discrimination:

    Seeking to take an extended leave under the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for legitimate medical reasons, Williams was instead met with constant violations of his rights. The mayor’s blatant disregard for his medical leave, including harassing phone calls and unannounced visits from fellow employees, served only to intimidate him during a period of vulnerability.

  • Demotion and Dismissal:

    On June 5, 2023, Williams faced a shocking demotion from Chief of Police to Corporal, swiftly followed by his termination just a week later, devoid of any clear, non-discriminatory rationale.

 

Key Allegations Made in the Lawsuit

The federal lawsuit filed on behalf of Williams makes numerous startling allegations that reveal a pattern of discrimination within the department. Below is an overview of the central claims:

  1. Racial Discrimination:

    Williams contends that Mayor Garner and other officials exhibited a visible bias against him and fellow African American employees. The lawsuit asserts that these officers were subjected to heightened scrutiny and arbitrary terminations grounded in racial prejudice. Williams recalls instances of being pressured to extend favoritism to the friends and family members of Caucasian employees—a demand he strongly resisted, subsequently facing retaliation in the form of micromanagement and unwarranted criticism.

  2. Disability Discrimination:

    The lawsuit also charges McColl’s leadership with gross violations of the ADA, alleging that they refused to provide Williams with reasonable accommodations during his medical leave. Instead, he endured unwelcome intrusions intended to degrade and intimidate him during his recovery.

  3. Hostile Work Environment:

    Williams describes a toxic workplace permeated by bullying, unsafe practices, and coercive behavior. Documented examples from the lawsuit reveal how he was routinely assigned back-to-back shifts with insufficient support and blamed for departmental failings due to unrealistic demands beyond his job scope, including being coerced into making questionable disciplinary decisions.

  4. Retaliation:

    The lawsuit asserts that Williams’ principled objections to unlawful practices ignited a wave of retaliatory actions against him—manifesting in demotion, grueling work hours, and the loss of his position.

 

Evidence Supporting Williams’ Claims

The court documents meticulously outline behaviors and incidents that bolster Williams’ accusations, including:

  • Denial of Support:

    Williams was burdened with overseeing police operations without the necessary staffing or resources. In critical situations, he found himself the only certified officer on duty, a perilous reality during high-stakes calls, such as shootings.

  • Unjust Criticism:

    The lawsuit cites specific instances where Williams faced unjust reprimands for operational challenges attributed to the mayor’s flawed policies, such as chronic equipment failures and inefficient scheduling.

  • Unequal Standards:

    A stark contrast emerged when comparing the treatment of Williams and other African American officers with their white counterparts, who were not subjected to the same invasive scrutiny or arbitrary decisions.

  • Malice and Indifference:

    Williams’ allegations paint a picture of a leadership more concerned with maintaining control than fostering an equitable environment, showcasing a troubling disregard for the moral and ethical responsibilities owed to every officer within the department.

This ongoing lawsuit not only demands accountability from the McColl Police Department but also serves as a broader call to action for systemic change within law enforcement organizations nationwide.

Posted on

MedMark Counselor Fired After Requesting Accommodations

Disability Discrimination Lawyers of Helmer Friedman LLP have extensive knowledge in this area of law.

In a recent situation that underscores the profound significance of protecting employee rights, BayMark Health Services faced serious allegations of disability discrimination after terminating an addiction counselor who had bravely requested reasonable accommodations to return to work following an extended medical leave. This case shines a light on the essential protections provided by laws like the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which exist to safeguard employees with disabilities from unjust treatment in the workplace.

“California employers need to be aware that the law of this state requires them to take reasonable steps to accommodate employees with disabilities and medical conditions so that they have the same access to employment as anyone else.” Andrew H. Friedman, founding partner of Helmer Friedman LLP

The counselor, dedicated to his role at MedMark Treatment Centers in Vallejo, California—a part of BayMark Health Services—sought accommodations that would allow him to continue his vital work of supporting individuals facing the challenges of substance use disorders. His desire to help others during his own time of need reflects both strength and commitment. Unfortunately, his request was denied, leading to his termination—a decision that not only affects his livelihood but goes against the spirit of the ADA. The law emphasizes the necessity for employers to provide reasonable adjustments for employees with disabilities, except in cases where such accommodations would impose an undue burden on the business.

In the aftermath of this distressing case, BayMark Health Services reached a settlement of $55,000, aimed to provide back pay and compensatory damages to the counselor. This resolution also included a commitment from the company to reassess and improve its non-discrimination policies, demonstrating a willingness to learn and grow. Additionally, they pledged to conduct comprehensive training for managers and HR personnel at their Vallejo location, emphasizing the importance of understanding and empathy in the workplace.

This situation serves as a poignant reminder to all employers about the necessity of engaging in open and compassionate conversations with employees who request accommodations, always prioritizing their ability to fulfill their roles.

If you or someone you know has faced dismissal due to a disability or because of an accommodation request, it’s vital to seek support from a compassionate disability discrimination lawyer. These legal experts can provide crucial guidance and representation, ensuring your rights are protected under laws like the ADA. Understanding your rights is not just the first step in navigating this challenging journey; it’s essential in fostering a workplace that is fair and inclusive for everyone, regardless of their health status.

Posted on

Lawsuit Settles for $205,000 After Walgreens Refused Employees Medical Treatment

Unaddressed sexual harassment complaints creating a hostile work environment. Contact the lawyers at Helmer Friedman LLP for help.

A deeply troubling case of pregnancy and disability discrimination at Walgreens has come to light through a recent lawsuit, revealing the grave ramifications of neglecting employee rights. The case centers on a pregnant sales associate, who was also battling diabetes and hypoglycemia, and tragically suffered a miscarriage after her manager callously denied her request for emergency leave. When she began to experience concerning symptoms and started spotting, her urgent plea for medical attention was met with refusal, highlighting a shocking disregard for her well-being. While the lawsuit was ultimately settled for $205,000, no financial compensation could ever repair the profound loss she endured as a result of this negligence.

This heartbreaking incident serves as a stark reminder of the protections afforded to employees under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Pregnancy Workers Fairness Act (PWFA). These laws are designed to ensure that pregnant workers receive the necessary accommodations to safeguard their health and well-being. Under the ADA, employers are prohibited from discriminating against individuals with disabilities, a category that includes pregnancy-related conditions. Additionally, the PWFA mandates that employers provide reasonable accommodations for job applicants or employees affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical circumstances, unless such accommodations result in significant difficulty or expense for the employer.

Regrettably, this case exemplifies a blatant violation of these critical regulations, leading to devastating consequences for the employee involved. The law clearly stipulates that employers must carefully consider requests for reasonable accommodations, including urgent medical leave, and are required to grant these requests unless they impose an undue hardship. Yet, in this instance, the pregnant sales associate was denied even the most fundamental and necessary accommodation of emergency medical leave.

If you or someone you know has faced a similar ordeal, it is vital to seek guidance from an attorney who specializes in disability discrimination. The legal landscape surrounding these situations can be complex and nuanced, necessitating the expertise of a professional who can adeptly navigate these issues. Your rights as a pregnant worker are safeguarded by law, and no individual should be forced to endure such a harrowing experience due to workplace negligence. Remember, the law stands with you, and there are dedicated professionals ready to assist you in asserting your rights.

Posted on

Standing Up Against Workplace Discrimination: The Role of the Americans With Disabilities Act

ADA protects employees from discrimination due to injuries outside of work.

It is crucial to recognize that an employee who suffers an injury outside of work should not be deprived of the support they need from their employer. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) mandates reasonable accommodations, regardless of the injury’s origin. A recent case brings this important issue to light.

Sam’s East, Inc., along with Walmart Inc., operating under the Sam’s Club name, is currently facing a lawsuit for alleged disability discrimination. This situation arose after an employee experienced significant health challenges—such as post-concussion syndrome, upper back pain, muscle spasms, and chronic lower back pain—following a car accident. The employee reached out for minor, temporary adjustments to her job duties, hoping to continue contributing to her workplace.

Regrettably, after just one shift, she was informed that accommodating her needs would not be possible. Instead, the suggestion was made for her to take additional leave until she could return without any restrictions. Despite providing an expected recovery date, the employee faced a heart-wrenching dismissal, firmly told that the company would not accommodate injuries sustained outside the workplace. This case, now in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, underscores the potential violation of both federal law and the dignity of the employee involved.

This distressing scenario serves as a poignant reminder of the discrimination that many individuals with disabilities continue to encounter in their work environments. The ADA clearly stipulates that reasonable accommodations must be provided, irrespective of the injury’s source. Companies like Sam’s Club have a profound responsibility to support employees facing hardships, ensuring they can return to work with the necessary adjustments in place. Just because an injury arises outside of work does not lessen the employer’s obligation to care for their employees’ well-being.

Given these challenges, it becomes increasingly important to seek the support of an experienced attorney who can advocate for your rights during such trying times. Standing up against unjust treatment is not just important, it’s empowering, not just for individual circumstances but for wider societal change. When people take legal action against discrimination, they help build a future where similar injustices are less likely to occur.

As district director Darrell Graham poignantly noted, “Employees with disabilities have a right to work… [and the] EEOC is committed to enforcing the ADA and ensuring that Americans with disabilities have equal access to employment.” By holding companies accountable, we can work together to uphold these rights and foster environments where everyone is supported and valued.

Posted on

Sex and Disability Discrimination – Menstruation and Related Conditions

Constitutional rights lawyers of Helmer Friedman LLP.

In recent years, a concerning rise in sex and disability discrimination lawsuits has highlighted the ongoing challenges women face in the workplace. Two particularly notable cases involving Equinox Holdings, Inc. and the Bobby Dodd Institute underscore the serious nature of these issues and the need for change.

Equinox Holdings, Inc., a well-respected fitness company, faced legal action for allegedly discriminating against an applicant based on her disability and sex. The woman, who struggled with endometriosis—a condition causing severe menstrual pain—was denied a front desk associate position despite having extensive relevant experience. Instead of being celebrated for her qualifications, she was turned away due to the misconception that accommodating her would be too inconvenient. Disturbingly, her rejection was communicated via text, explicitly referencing her “monthly cycle” as a concern. This case (EEOC v. Equinox Holdings, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-03597) highlights a blatant violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The lawsuit seeks justice through back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, and injunctive relief to prevent such discrimination in the future.

Similarly, the case of Alisha Coleman, who was let go from the Bobby Dodd Institute after nearly a decade of service as a 911 call taker, reveals troubling practices regarding sex discrimination. Coleman faced dismissal due to sudden, heavy menstrual flow during her perimenopause phase. Despite the protections outlined in Title VII, which explicitly prohibits workplace discrimination based on sex—including pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions—her case was unfortunately dismissed by the district court, reflecting significant oversight. The ACLU has since championed Coleman’s cause, emphatically arguing that perimenopause and its symptoms are included under the protections of Title VII.

As we reflect on these unfortunate examples, it is clear that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 mandates equitable treatment for all employees, regardless of sex—including with respect to pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical matters. The increasing visibility of such cases serves as a powerful reminder of the urgent need for robust enforcement of these legal protections across all workplace environments.

For anyone impacted by discriminatory practices, seeking guidance from a knowledgeable employment law attorney is essential. These professionals are equipped with the expertise to navigate the complexities of discrimination cases, helping victims pursue the justice they rightly deserve in the face of unfair treatment. Together, by raising awareness and taking action, we can foster a workplace landscape that truly values inclusion and equity for all.

Posted on

Championing Disability Rights: The Role of ADA and Legal Support

The ADA ensures equal opportunities regardless and ADA lawyers protect clients rights, Helmer Friedman LLP.

In a ground-breaking move that draws attention to the important protections granted by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Catalyst Family Inc., a non-profit entity operating child development centers across California, has agreed to a settlement amounting to almost $150,000. The settlement resolves a disability discrimination lawsuit alleging that the company violated the ADA by firing an assistant teacher instead of granting his request for an accommodation due to his intellectual and cognitive disabilities.

Founded in 1975 as Continuing Development Incorporated and subsequently rebranded to Catalyst Family, Inc. in 2020, the organization has been serving families and children in California for over 45 years. Yet, it found itself at the receiving end of a lawsuit when it dismissed a part-time employee who had been with the company for two years after he sought an accommodation for his disability in March 2021. Remarkably, this termination occurred instead of fully implementing the requested accommodation, leading to allegations of the ADA’s contravention.

A cornerstone of the ADA, a fundamental legislation in the United States, is the requirement for employers to provide reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities unless it leads to an undue hardship on the company. This mandate was enacted to level the playing field and give equal opportunities to all, regardless of their disability.

After investigating the issue, a pre-litigation conciliation process ensued, leading to the aforementioned settlement. Catalyst Family Inc. agreed not only to pay the monetary damages but also to revise its non-discrimination policies and procedures and provide training for all managers, recruiters, and HR personnel.

The company also committed to offering the terminated worker a neutral reference letter and removing the termination notice from his personnel file. The employee, now employed at a different educational program, expressed satisfaction with the settlement, indicating it was beneficial for everyone with disabilities, their families, and the children under their care.

Nancy Sienko, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission San Francisco District Director, noted that Catalyst Family’s cooperation to ensure compliance with the ADA’s requirements marks a victory for all involved. She highlighted the agency’s Strategic Enforcement Plan, emphasizing the importance of protecting vulnerable workers, including people with developmental or intellectual disabilities, from employment discrimination.

Through this case, it is clear that the ADA’s provisions for reasonable accommodations are not just optional niceties but essential rights for people with disabilities. It reminds businesses about the high cost of disability discrimination in the workplace, which goes beyond monetary penalties to include significant reputational damage.

As this case illustrates, employees who believe they have been discriminated against due to their disability should not hesitate to stand up for their rights. Seeking an experienced ADA attorney can make all the difference in challenging discriminatory practices, ensuring that policies align with the ADA, and attaining the justice they deserve. Reaching out to a legal expert can be the first step towards a more inclusive and fair workplace where everyone’s right to pursue their dreams is respected.

Posted on

Violating Laws Protecting Travelers with Disabilities – $50 Million Fine

Americans with Disability Rights lawyers - Helmer Friedman LLP.

DOT found that American Airlines failed to provide safe, dignified, and prompt wheelchair assistance and mishandled passengers’ wheelchairs  

“One traveler with a disability told us in her words, ‘I was made to feel like a piece of luggage, so I do not fly anymore’”

Recent developments have marked a significant advancement for travelers with disabilities, particularly with American Airlines. The Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) have taken a strong stance to ensure equal access and dignified treatment for passengers with disabilities, imposing a landmark $50 million penalty on American Airlines for serious infractions of disability laws between 2019 and 2023.

The Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA)

“We applaud the Department of Transportation’s landmark civil rights agreement to uphold the dignity of passengers with disabilities in air travel,” said Kristen Clarke, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights.

The Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) prohibits airlines from discriminating against passengers due to their disabilities. The DOT enforces the ACAA, which applies to all flights to, from, or within the United States. Violations reported include inadequate physical assistance leading to injuries and the mishandling and delays of wheelchairs—issues that have persisted with major U.S. airlines. Notably, complaints from disabled passengers surged by 9% from 2021 to 2022, reflecting the challenges millions of travelers face. In 2019, approximately 27 million individuals with disabilities traveled by air, according to the DOT.

“The Department of Justice is committed to ensuring that people with disabilities have the freedom to travel independently. Travelers with disabilities must be confident they will receive timely assistance and arrive safely, with their mobility aids and assistive devices intact.”

Airline Passengers with Disabilities Bill of Rights

In response to these issues, the DOT introduced the first-ever Airline Passengers with Disabilities Bill of Rights in July 2022. This important document outlines the rights to which disabled passengers are entitled during their travels, including the timely return of mobility devices in their original condition, prompt assistance for boarding and disembarking, and support in navigating airports.

As part of the investigation, American Airlines will pay a $25 million fine, with an additional $25 million allocated for investments in equipment to reduce wheelchair damage and delays, improve wheelchair handling coordination at large airports, and compensate affected passengers.

Under Secretary Buttigieg’s leadership, the DOT has imposed nearly $225 million in penalties against airlines for consumer protection and civil rights violations since 2020, underscoring the Biden-Harris Administration’s commitment to holding airlines accountable.

“The era of tolerating poor treatment of airline passengers with disabilities is over,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg. “With this penalty, we are setting a new standard of accountability for airlines that violate the civil rights of passengers with disabilities. By setting penalties at levels beyond a mere cost of doing business for airlines, we’re aiming to change how the industry behaves and prevent these kinds of abuses from happening in the first place.”

In addition to enforcing penalties, the Biden-Harris Administration is introducing new regulations and funding for equipment to enhance travel experiences for disabled passengers. These new rules will establish standards for accessible lavatories on aircraft, provide funding for accessibility improvements at airports, and propose regulations to ensure safe and dignified accommodations for passengers using wheelchairs.

These initiatives reflect the dedicated efforts of the DOT and DOJ under the Biden-Harris Administration to address past violations, hold airlines accountable, and ensure a safer and more dignified air travel experience for passengers with disabilities.

Posted on

Protecting Pregnant Workers: A Close Look at the Laws and the Realities on Ground

Pregnancy discrimination accommodations.

Imagine landing a new job, attending the first training day, and then receiving the distressing news that “there might be something wrong with my daughter’s heart.” You are looking to seek immediate medical attention for your unborn child, but instead of understanding or empathy from your new employer, your job offer is rescinded. This is not fiction; it is a story that unfortunately unfolded for a sales consultant at Victra’s Dayton, Nevada, store.

Victra, a nationwide retailer of Verizon mobile devices, has been sued for alleged violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 under Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Before we delve into the details of the lawsuit, it’s pivotal to understand the laws that protect pregnant workers.

The Americans with Disabilities Act passed in 1990, prohibits discrimination against a qualified individual because of a pregnancy-related impairment that an employer regards as a disability. It paved the way for heightened awareness and protection for people with disabilities, including those related to pregnancy, ensuring their right to equal employment opportunities.

More recently, on June 27, 2023, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) went into effect, providing additional protections for pregnant workers. The PWFA requires employers to provide pregnant workers with equal opportunities and flexibility as they do for other applicants or employees.

These laws aim to put a stop to discrimination against pregnant employees or applicants who may need immediate and emergency care related to pregnancy. Yet, the Victra case reminds us that these unfair practices still exist. The plaintiff in this lawsuit was denied the right to leave training for urgent prenatal care and lost her job as a result.

The sad reality is that pregnant workers should never have to choose between keeping their jobs or seeking urgent prenatal care to protect the health of both parent and child. Losing the ability to earn income during such a critical time is challenging and disheartening. Thankfully, entities like EEOC are there to defend the rights of pregnant applicants and employees against employment discrimination.

If you have experienced pregnancy-related discrimination, remember that you are not alone. There are laws designed to protect you and legal professionals available to help you navigate these daunting situations. An experienced employment law attorney can guide you through the legal processes, ensuring your rights are protected and justice is served. It’s crucial not to let discriminatory behavior go unchallenged. Stand up against it because each voice contributes to a louder call for equality, fairness, and justice in the workplace.

Posted on

In the Face of Disability Discrimination: A FedEx Employee’s Tough Road

Refusing reasonable accommodations is disability discrimination and it is illegal. Contact the ADA Lawyers at Helmer Friedman LLP.

In an era where inclusivity should be a given, it is disheartening to witness drastic violations of employees’ rights, particularly those who are differently-abled. Employees employed by FedEx, a globally recognized shipping and logistics company, found themselves unemployed due to the corporation’s stringent 100 %-healed policy.

The story that stands out in this murky tide of exploitation is the tale of a Minneapolis-based FedEx driver. The unnamed woman who motivated the launch of a lawsuit against her employer had been subjected to unfair treatment due to medical restrictions. Her job as a ramp transport driver involved driving a tractor-trailer and operating mechanical equipment to load and unload freight. An injury had limited her lifting abilities, invoking FedEx’s 100 %-healed policy. The policy forced the ramp transport driver into a 90-day temporary light-duty assignment. When her medical restrictions remained after 90 days, she was placed on unpaid medical leave. FedEx ultimately terminated her employment due to her inability to work without restrictions – a harsh reality for someone who could have done her job with reasonable accommodations.

According to Gregory Gochanour, of the EEOC’s Chicago District Office, “100%-healed policies, like the one FedEx has, cost qualified workers their livelihood without giving them individual consideration.” He further added, “Under the ADA, employers have an obligation to explore reasonable accommodations and not to screen out qualified individuals with disabilities who can do their jobs.”

Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The act prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities, mandates employers to provide reasonable accommodations enabling employees to perform their jobs, and bars employers from policies that screen out qualified individuals with disabilities.

To FedEx employees and others stuck in similar situations, know that you are not alone and your struggles are valid. The “100 %-healed” policy that cost you your employment directly violates the ADA, a federal law enacted to provide you with rightful protection and accommodation. Don’t let corporations like FedEx undermine your rights.

Fellow workers, you are invited to step up, speak out, and report such ADA violations. Please reach out to an experienced Disability Discrimination Attorney who can help you navigate this legal terrain and ensure that your rights are upheld. Stand tall against discrimination. Remember, no one can strip you of your rightful place in your workspace, let alone your inherent dignity.