Domina Law Group pc llo alerts employers and employees of three significant
cases recently resolved by the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Employers need to be aware of these results; so do employees who require
Case #1: An Oregon potato and onion packager agreed to pay $80,000 and furnish
other relief to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit in a settled
of a suit filed by the EEOC. The EEOC court case charged that South Basin
Packing fired a worker right after he informed the company of a diagnosis
for a chronic medical condition. Termination due to a disability violates
the Americans With Disabilities Act, which requires employers to explore
reasonable accommodations. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court
for the District of Oregon after an investigation found the employee was
"fully capable of doing his job," the agency stated. Under the
terms of the settlement in late March, the company will pay $80,000 to
the worker, draft new policies, and provide training about disability
Case #2: John Muir Health, a California health care system with hospitals and other
facilities, agreed in March to pay $340,000 to eight people and to implement
preventative measures to settle a federal disability discrimination lawsuit
filed by the EEOC.
The EEOC sued John Muir charging that it withdrew job offers to seven
nurses and one lab technician based on workplace restrictions. The restrictions
were imposed by doctors contracted to conduct pre-employment health screenings.
John Muir assumed the workers had life-threatening latex allergies and
couldn't safely work in a hospital setting. Some, but not all of the
workers were evaluated by allergists, who did not diagnose problems that
would preclude them from working in a hospital. All eventually got jobs
in health care.
Case #3: A Pennsylvania copper parts manufacturer must pay $85,000 and furnish
remedial relief to settle a federal ADA lawsuit. The EEOC charged that
Hussey Copper, Ltd. unlawfully refused to hire a job applicant. The EEOC's
now-settled suit claims that the company offered Donald Teaford a job
as a production laborer but later rescinded the offer based on his disability.
The job offer had been conditioned on Teaford passing a physical examination.
Thepost-job offer examination allowed the the company doctor to learn
that Teaford was receiving methadone as part of a clinically supervised
chemical dependency treatment program. The company "mistakenly"
concluded Teaford was a safety risk due to his methadone treatment, according
to the EEOC.