Over 29,000 charges of disability discrimination were reported last year alone.
As we delve into the pressing issue of employment disability discrimination, recent data reveals a startling trend: discrimination incidents have surged to a 25-year high. This spike raises critical questions about the systemic barriers faced by individuals with disabilities in the workplace. Despite advancements in legislation aimed at promoting inclusivity and equal opportunities, the gap between policy intentions and workplace realities appears to be widening. This investigation seeks to unpack the underlying factors contributing to this alarming increase by reviewing three employers in different industries facing lawsuits for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
According to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), “No qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.” This foundational principle underscores the Act’s commitment to ensuring that individuals with disabilities are afforded the same opportunities as their non-disabled counterparts. As the lawsuits unfold, examining how these employers allegedly neglected their responsibilities under this provision will be crucial to understanding the broader implications of their actions.
One of the cases involves the Ned NoMad hotel and members’ club in Manhattan. The hotel allegedly refused to accommodate an employee with a knee condition that limited her standing or walking to no more than 30 minutes at a time. Despite providing a medical note, the employee was not allowed to use a stool while performing clerical work at the host stand and was eventually terminated.
In another case, Smith’s Detection, Inc., a manufacturer of threat detection equipment, is being sued for demoting a disabled employee who requested personal protective equipment (PPE) to protect her hearing from manufacturing equipment noise. Instead of providing the PPE, the employer demoted the employee from her team lead position, resulting in reduced pay, and assigned her to a quieter area.
The third case involves Holsum bakery in La Porte, Indiana, which allegedly refused to modify a policy to allow an employee to use a walker, as required by her physician. The bakery’s failure to accommodate the employee made it impossible for her to access her workstation, restroom, and break room, resulting in her termination.
These alleged actions by the companies violate the ADA, which requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities.
As these cases unfold, they not only shed light on the specific actions of these employers but also highlight a pressing need for accountability in the workplace regarding disability rights. Employees with disabilities face unique challenges, and it is essential that their rights are protected through appropriate legal channels. Therefore, the role of an experienced disability discrimination attorney becomes paramount. Such professionals not only bring expertise in navigating the complexities of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) but also ensure that the voices of affected employees are heard and valued. Engaging legal representation can be crucial in pursuing justice and fostering a more inclusive and compliant work environment for all.
I am a victim of breast cancer “disability discrimination and failure to accommodate under the ADA by FedEx Corporation. FedEx is a major corporation with its own Legal Department and failed to comply with the well-established ADA laws and discriminated against a qualified employee with a known disability. Sharing my cancer diagnosis with my boss, Karen Galambos, was the biggest mistake of my life. Although Karen was the Staff Vice President of the Human Resources department that handled FMLA requests, she did not recognize my request for accommodation, and she did not treat my breast cancer as a disability that was protected by the ADA. Instead of engaging in the mandatory interactive process to accommodate my disability, FedEx retaliated and unlawfully terminated my long-term (26 years) employment.
The facts are that breast cancer is a disability as defined by the ADA §12112(a) that is protected from FMLA Interference §2615(a)(1) and FMLA Retaliation §2615(a)(2). FedEx failed to engage in the mandatory “interactive process” to accommodate my known disability. 42 U.S.C. §12112(b)(5)(A). It is FedEx’s responsibility to know its obligations under the ADA. See Mary Yanick v. The Kroger Co. of Mich., No. 21-11582 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 20, 2023). It is an employer’s duty to initiate the “interactive process” without a request for accommodation from the employee.
Unfortunately, for the past six years I find myself, a prudent person, being vilified and forced to vindicate my civil rights under the well-established ADA laws because of ADA and FMLA violations at FedEx’s “Human Resources Staff Vice President level .”
FedEx know the laws surrounding the ADA. However, FedEx has created a workplace culture that continuously enable unlawful discrimination and the failure to accommodate qualified employees with known disabilities, in violation of the ADA. See Wallace v. FedEx Corp., 764 F.3d 571, 590 (6th Cir. 2014); Hubbell v. FedEx SmartPost, Inc., No. 18-1727 (6th Cir. 2019); Cayetano v. Federal Express Corporation (1:19-cv-10619); EEOC v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., No. 2:15-cv-00256 (W.D. Pa. May 18, 2020); Goldstine v. FedEx Freight Inc., CASE NO. C18-1164 MJP (W.D. Wash. Aug. 17, 2020); Harold Carter v. Federal Express Corporation, et al (2:17-cv-04057). FedEx actively engages in discrimination from the top of the corporate structure on down, so much as to promote an organization of workplace discrimination and is good at hiding it.