Tag: ADA

Posted on

Everport Terminal Services Settles Disability Discrimination Lawsuit for $200,000

Disability discrimination, age discrimination lawyers in Los Angeles, Helmer Friedman LLP.

Disability Discrimination Lawsuit Settled for $200,000

Workplace discrimination remains a pressing issue, and a recent settlement involving Everport Terminal Services underscores the importance of employers prioritizing inclusivity and complying with federal disability laws. Everport Terminal Services is a key player in the shipping and logistics industry, managing container cargo at its terminals. The company collaborates with ocean carriers, trucking companies, and rail services to streamline operations.

This case involves a mechanic, employed by Everport, who faced alleged discrimination based on his disability. This lawsuit not only brings attention to the rights of disabled employees but underscores the ultimate necessity for workplaces to adopt accommodations that promote equity.

The Case at a Glance

“I wanted to work within the restrictions set by my doctor,” expressed the mechanic, reflecting on his experience. “When I showed up to accept the offer of modified duty, it was painful to be turned away.”

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a case against Everport Terminal Services, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). According to the lawsuit, the company failed to provide reasonable accommodations for the mechanic, despite being aware of his disability. Additionally, the mechanic reportedly faced workplace conditions that were not only noncompliant with ADA standards but also allegedly detrimental to his ability to perform his job effectively.

Without admitting liability, Everport Terminal Services agreed to a $200,000 settlement to resolve the case. Along with financial compensation, the settlement requires the company to revise its disability accommodation policies, conduct employee training on ADA compliance, and establish monitoring protocols to prevent future violations.

The Broader Significance

A Spotlight on Workplace Accommodation

This settlement serves as a reminder of the central role that accommodations play in fostering an equitable workplace environment. Under the ADA, employers are obligated to provide reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities, barring undue hardship to the organization. These can include modified work schedules, adjusted duties, or equipment tailored to specific needs.

Failing to meet these obligations not only compromises the dignity of employees but also risks significant legal and financial repercussions, as seen in this case. Employers should view accommodation efforts not as a mere requirement but as an investment in workplace diversity and human potential.

Costs of Noncompliance

The lawsuit against Everport Terminal Services highlights the significant costs associated with noncompliance with federal laws designed to protect the rights of individuals with disabilities. The $200,000 settlement is just one facet of this cost. Beyond the financial penalty lies the reputational damage, a longer-term consequence that can affect employee morale, public perception, and even recruitment efforts.

This case serves as a cautionary tale for companies that overlook their responsibilities under the ADA, highlighting the importance of proactive measures and policies.

Cultivating Inclusive Workplaces

Steps Employers Can Take

It’s not enough to be aware of disability rights; organizations must act on this awareness. Here are some steps employers can take to ensure inclusivity in their workplaces:

  1. Comprehensive Training Programs: Employers should regularly train staff, from top executives to entry-level workers, on the intricacies of ADA requirements and the importance of fostering a supportive environment for employees with disabilities.
  2. Proactive Policy Reviews: Companies should conduct annual reviews of their hiring practices, workplace accommodations, and anti-discrimination policies, focusing on compliance and inclusivity.
  3. Accessible Communication Channels: Employees must feel safe and encouraged to communicate their needs without fear of retaliation. Open dialogue is vital for effective accommodation.
  4. Collaboration with Advocates: Partnering with disability rights organizations or consulting accessibility experts can help identify and address structural barriers within a workplace.

The Business Case for Inclusivity

Organizations that adopt inclusive practices often see substantial benefits beyond legal compliance. Numerous studies have shown that diverse teams outperform in innovation, problem-solving, and overall productivity. By creating an environment where employees feel valued and supported, companies can unlock untapped talent and strengthen their bottom line.

Looking Ahead

While the $200,000 settlement between Everport Terminal Services and the EEOC resolves the immediate allegations, it leaves behind a lasting message about the importance of inclusivity. The case serves as a reminder to employers that overlooking accommodations not only harms affected employees but also signals systemic failings that can lead to legal and reputational risks.

By prioritizing inclusivity, adhering to laws such as the ADA, and treating accommodations as both a moral and business imperative, workplaces can move closer to achieving equity for all employees.

This settlement marks a turning point—an opportunity for organizations across industries to reassess their policies and practices. Progress begins with understanding and action, ensuring that no employee is sidelined because of a disability.

If you or someone you know has experienced disability discrimination in the workplace, it’s important to take action. Consulting with an attorney with experience in employment law can provide valuable guidance on your rights and potential legal remedies. An experienced attorney can help you understand the protections afforded under the ADA and other relevant laws, assess the specifics of your situation, and advocate on your behalf to ensure justice is served. Taking this step not only supports your own rights but also contributes to fostering a more inclusive and equitable workplace for others.

Posted on

ADA Provisions Extend Beyond Conventional Notions of Disability Discrimination

Corrections officer -Employment law decision disability discrimination.

Navigating Workplace Rights with Legal Expertise

In employment law, the case of John Nawara highlights the challenges individuals may encounter when asserting their rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). This case serves as a significant example of both employers’ obligations and the determination employees must possess to protect their rights.

John Nawara began his tenure with the Cook County Sheriff’s Office in 1998 and served as a correctional officer for nearly two decades. However, in 2016, his career took a critical turn following several difficult interactions with colleagues, including a superior officer, an HR manager, and an occupational health nurse. These incidents raised concerns that prompted his employer to require a fitness-for-duty evaluation, leading to a series of legal proceedings that examined the interpretation of the ADA.

The decision to place Nawara on paid leave while awaiting a medical examination raised important questions regarding ADA compliance, particularly concerning medical inquiries and evaluations. Cook County required Nawara to sign medical authorization forms, which he initially resisted. This resistance resulted in a shift from paid leave to unpaid leave. Eventually, he agreed to the examination and was cleared to return to work. Despite this clearance, the requirement for a medical examination without a clear justification led Nawara to pursue legal action, claiming his employer had violated ADA guidelines.

As the case advanced through the legal system, it garnered considerable attention and support, notably from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The central legal issue was whether Cook County’s insistence on a medical examination constituted a form of disability discrimination, highlighting that an employee might invoke ADA protections even without a recognized disability.

The ADA imposes strict limitations on when employers can demand medical examinations from current employees, stipulating that such requests must be job-related and consistent with business necessity. Nawara, supported by the EEOC, argued that the demand for a medical examination was unjustified and violated these standards. Ultimately, the appeals court ruled in Nawara’s favor, affirming his right to receive back pay—a landmark decision indicating that the ADA’s provisions extend beyond conventional notions of disability discrimination.

This case serves as an important reminder to both employees and employers about the nuances of ADA provisions. Employers must exercise caution and ensure any medical examinations or inquiries are properly justified, while employees should be aware of their rights and protections.

Nawara’s experience illustrates that the path to justice can be complex and emotionally taxing. Therefore, it is crucial for individuals facing such issues to seek consultation with experienced employment attorneys. These legal professionals offer vital guidance and advocacy, enabling employees to navigate their rights and responsibilities effectively, thus highlighting the essential role of legal expertise in fostering fair outcomes in the workplace.

Posted on

Disability, Genetic Information Discrimination Suit Settled for $515,000

DNA genetic information discrimination lawyers in Los Angeles Helmer Friedman LLP.

Factor One Source Pharmacy Pressured Employees and Applicants to Fill Expensive Hemophilia Prescriptions with the Company

Factor One Source Pharmacy, LLC has agreed to pay $515,000 and provide other relief to resolve a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for disability and genetic information discrimination. The lawsuit alleged that the pharmacy violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) by pressuring employees and applicants to use its pharmacy services for expensive hemophilia prescriptions. The company unlawfully inquired about employee disabilities and genetic information and targeted individuals with hemophilia or family members with hemophilia for recruitment.

Employees who refused to use the company’s pharmacy services for hemophilia medications were reportedly fired or laid off, while those who complied retained their jobs, even if they had poorer performance reviews. This alleged conduct violated the ADA and GINA, which prohibit discrimination based on disability and genetic information.

The EEOC filed the suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, and the settlement requires the new owners of Factor One to pay $515,000 in monetary relief, among other provisions. The company is also prohibited from employing or contracting with its prior CEO and owner, taking adverse employment actions against employees based on their non-use of the company’s pharmacy, and must provide ADA and GINA training to employees and conduct a survey on their treatment in the workplace.

EEOC officials emphasized the importance of preventing unlawful discrimination in the specialty pharmacy industry and highlighted that federal laws prohibit discrimination based on familial connections, such as family medical history under GINA and discrimination based on an employee’s relationship or association with an individual with a disability under the ADA.

Posted on

Anxiety Disability Discrimination Lawsuit Citizens Bank

Federal laws protect employees from discriminatreverse discrimination, employer retaliation.

Anxiety Disability Discrimination Lawsuit against Citizens Bank Settles for $100,000

Citizens Bank has been accused of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by refusing to accommodate a call center employee who developed an anxiety disorder. The employee requested reassignment to a position that did not require him to field calls with aggravated customers over the phone. Despite having hundreds of nearby job openings, Citizens Bank refused to reassign the employee or discuss alternative accommodations until he returned to his job at the call center, the same position his disability prevented him from performing. As a result, the employee was forced to resign.

“We’ve seen a huge uptick in the number of potential or prospective clients calling us since the pandemic began with regard to either mental health issues in general or anxiety and PTSD.” Andrew H. Friedman – in an Law360 article entitled, No Letup in Sight as Anxiety-Related EEOC Charges Mount.

The EEOC filed a lawsuit (EEOC v. Citizens Bank, N.A., Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-00362) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The EEOC alleges that Citizens Bank violated the ADA, which prohibits discrimination against employees with disabilities and requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations, including reassignment.

According to the EEOC, 2600 workers lodged anxiety-related disability discrimination charges in 2021. Citizens Bank has agreed to a 30-month consent decree that includes monetary relief and other measures to support employees with disabilities. The bank will offer noncompetitive reassignment as a reasonable accommodation for employees with disabilities. The bank will also revise its reasonable accommodation policy, train its employees on noncompetitive reassignment as a reasonable accommodation, provide specialized training to its human resources department, and appoint an internal monitor to ensure compliance with the decree.

The EEOC is committed to enforcing the ADA and ensuring that qualified employees with disabilities can return to work. Citizens Bank will implement company-wide policy changes and pay $100,000 to a former Cranston, Rhode Island, call center employee to resolve the disability discrimination lawsuit.

More information about disability discrimination is available at https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc-disability-related-resources.

Posted on

Papa John’s Pizza Disability Discrimination Lawsuit Settled for $175,000

Disability discrimination laws protect blind employees accommodations for service dogs. Helmer Friedman LLP vigorously protects the rights of all employees.

Federal Agency Charges Pizza Chain Failed to Accommodate and Fired Blind Employee Because of Disability Settled

“Congress passed Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act to remove the barriers to employment faced by workers with disabilities, and for Mr. Barnes, his service dog does just that,” said Darrell Graham, district director of the Atlanta office. “The EEOC will continue its fight to ensure that all employees, regardless of disability status, have an equal opportunity to earn the privileges and benefits of employment.”

Papa John’s Pizza, an international chain of pizza restaurants based in Louisville, Kentucky, has settled a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) by agreeing to pay $175,000 and provide other relief. The lawsuit was filed after the company failed to accommodate and fired a blind employee because of his disability.

In early 2020, Michael Barnes, who is legally blind and relies on his service dog for his commute, applied for a job at his local Papa John’s restaurant in Athens, Georgia, after hearing from a friend that the company hired individuals with vision impairments. Barnes was hired but could not start until his accommodation request to bring his service dog was formally granted by Papa John’s. However, the company denied Barnes’s accommodation request and fired him before he worked a single shift.

Such conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). “The ADA prohibits employers from terminating employees because of a disability and denying them equal employment opportunities,” said Marcus G. Keegan, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Atlanta District Office.

“Not allowing blind and visually impaired people to travel to and from work in the way that affords them confidence and independence is akin to telling sighted workers who rely on the flexibility and independence of driving that they may not travel to work by car,” said Karla Gilbride, the EEOC’s general counsel. “We are glad that Papa John’s has agreed to provide training to its employees and hope that in the future, no other job applicant who uses a service dog will experience the discrimination that Mr. Barnes faced.”

Under the two-year consent decree resolving the lawsuit, Papa John’s will pay $175,000 in monetary damages to Barnes, train its employees on the ADA, review its employment policies, and allow the EEOC to monitor complaints of discrimination or retaliation.

“The EEOC will continue its fight to ensure that all employees, regardless of disability status, have an equal opportunity to earn the privileges and benefits of employment,” said Darrell Graham, district director of the Atlanta office.

“We are glad that Papa John’s has agreed to provide training to its employees and hope that in the future, no other job applicant who uses a service dog will experience the discrimination that Mr. Barnes faced,” said Karla Gilbride, the EEOC’s general counsel.

“The Commission is steadfast in its commitment to making sure all employees have an equal opportunity to earn and enjoy the privileges and benefits of employment, regardless of their disability status,” added Darrell Graham, district director of the EEOC’s Atlanta office.

For more information on disability discrimination, please visit https://www.eeoc.gov/disability-discrimination.