Massey Services Will Pay $63,000 to Settle EEOC Discrimination and Retaliation Lawsuit
Pest control and landscaping company Massey Services, Inc. will pay $63,000 and provide other significant relief to settle an employment discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced today. The EEOC charged in its lawsuit that the company violated federal law when it denied an employee's request for medical leave, fired her after learning of her medical condition, and subsequently failed to rehire her for the position that she previously held that remained vacant.
According to the EEOC's lawsuit, Massey denied former employee Annie Mitchell's request for leave after she became hospitalized due to her disability and instead discharged her from her position. The EEOC's suit further alleges that Massey actively recruited other candidates for Mitchell's office manager position and refused to rehire Mitchell - even though she sought to return to her prior job - in retaliation for her accommodation request, said the EEOC.
Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. Massey Services, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-00263) in U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, Charleston Division after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.
In addition to paying $63,000 in monetary relief, the two-year consent decree resolving the lawsuit enjoins Massey from violating the ADA in the future and requires it to report to the EEOC on its compliance with the decree, including how it handles any future discrimination or retaliation complaints. Massey will modify its policies and make exceptions to any leave provisions by providing unpaid medical leave as a form of reasonable accommodation. The company will provide training on the ADA, with an emphasis on its obligations to provide reasonable accommodations and not to retaliate against employees who request those accommodations.
"This is a meaningful settlement," said Antonette Sewell, regional attorney for the EEOC's Atlanta District Office. "In addition to providing just compensation to Ms. Mitchell, the decree will serve as a reminder to employers that they have an obligation to make policy or practice exceptions and provide leave as a form of reasonable accommodation unless doing so would result in an undue hardship."
EEOC Atlanta District Director Darrell E. Graham added, "The ADA requires employers to assess each employee's request for an accommodation on an individualized basis, rather than having blanket policies that apply across the board."
Sixth Circuit "Regarded As" ADA Case — When Reality And Perception Collide
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) not only provides protection to individuals who have physical or mental impairments, but to individuals an employer may perceive to have such impairments. These cases can be challenging for employers to defend, and the recent Sixth Circuit case, Babb v. Maryville Anesthesiologists, P.C., demonstrates how failure to appropriately identify and communicate about an employee's perceived (or actual) impairment can create obstacles to a successful defense.
ADA suit vs. Kohl’s revived by Sixth Circuit
An Arizona man who sued over allegedly inaccessible restrooms at two Kohl’s locations in Michigan had his case revived by a split U.S. Sixth Circuit of Appeals panel.
In Mosley v. Kohl’s Department Stores (MiLW 01-101458, 19 pages), the appeals panel reversed the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit, which dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.
The plaintiff “sufficiently alleged a plausible intent to return” to the stores in Northville and Novi, and established injury-in-fact for purposes of pleading, the appeals panel majority ruled.
Judge Karen Nelson Moore wrote the majority opinion, joined by Judge Richard Allen Griffin. Senior Judge David W. McKeague dissented.
Chipotle Has Nurses Check That Employees Who Call in Sick Really Are
The restaurant chain has on-call nurses who validate that employees who call in sick aren’t just hungover, but is it really an effective way to improve food safety?
US Attorney Reaches Settlements In Restaurant-Access Complaint
The US Attorney’s Office for the State of Connecticut reached settlement agreements with the Market Place Kitchen & Bar of 32 Church Hill Road and with its landlord, Mesa Contractors, December 17, to resolve allegations that the restaurant and its premises did not comply with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
The two settlement agreements resolve an ADA complaint filed by an individual with disabilities alleging that the Market Place was not fully accessible for individuals with physical disabilities.
The Market Place and Mesa Contractors are in the process of making the changes required by the settlement agreements.
As part of its settlement agreement with the government, the Market Place will provide accessible dining tables throughout its restaurant facility, ensure equivalent service for individuals in the restaurant’s bar area, ensure access to the restaurant’s patio area, post accessible signage, and ensure that the restaurant’s restrooms meet accessibility requirements, according to a statement from the US Attorney.
As part of its settlement agreement with the government, Mesa Contractors will increase accessible parking spaces in the parking lot.
Under federal law, private entities that own or operate places of “public accommodation,” including restaurants and bars, are prohibited from discriminating on the basis of disability. Federal law also bars the landlord of a place of public accommodation from discriminating on the basis of disability.
The ADA authorizes the US Department of Justice to investigate complaints and undertake periodic reviews of compliance of covered entities. The Justice Department is also authorized to commence a civil lawsuit in federal court in any case that involves a pattern or practice of discrimination or that raises issues of general public importance, and to seek injunctive relief, monetary damages, and civil penalties.
The owners of Market Place Kitchen & Bar and Mesa Contractors cooperated throughout the investigation, according to the US Attorney’s statement.
NYPD did not discriminate in firing trainee for undisclosed medical history
Dive Brief:
- The New York City Police Department (NYPD) did not discriminate against trainee Renee Camoia based on a perceived disability when it fired her after discovering an undisclosed medical history, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has held (Camoia v. City of New York, et al., No. 18-3473 (2nd Cir. Dec. 13, 2019)).
- The NYPD terminated Camoia because it was notified of an undisclosed history of anxiety and panic attacks that led them to believe she was not qualified to serve as a police officer. She filed suit, alleging she had been subjected to discrimination on the basis of a perceived disability — bipolar disorder.
- A trial court granted summary judgment to the employer, observing that the record did not contain enough evidence for a jury to conclude Camoia had shown that the NYPD regarded her as having bipolar disorder. She appealed and the 2nd Circuit agreed with the lower court, find that she was terminated based on her "significant history of anxiety and panic attacks."
Dive Insight:
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) generally protects qualified individuals from workplace discrimination and other forms of bias. It also bans discrimination against a qualified person on the basis of a perceived disability, regardless of whether the person actually has a disability under the ADA. This is known as "regarded as" discrimination.
The "regarded as" prong of the ADA's definition of disability protects an individual from discrimination based on an employer's belief that he or she has a disability. Because it had become difficult for individuals to establish coverage under the "regarded as" prong, the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 lowered the bar for such claims so that the focus for establishing coverage is now on "how a person has been treated because of a physical or mental impairment (that is not transitory and minor), rather than on what an employer may have believed about the nature of the person's impairment," according to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Experts say employers can prevent "regarded as" claims by training managers on the ADA's nondiscrimination requirements and by teaching them to ask the right questions when employees come forward with a request or begin to struggle with their duties.
Five more Queens subway stations will become ADA accessible
The MTA has added five Queens subway stations to the list of transit sites set to receive accessibility upgrades in the proposed 2020-2024 Capital Plan. The station improvements are part of the MTA’s plan to ensure that riders are no more than two stops from an accessible station.
Court Square on the E/M line, Northern Boulevard on the M/R line, 33rd Street on the No. 7 line, 46th Street on the No. 7 line and Parsons Boulevard on the F line are the latest Queens stations to be targeted for accessibility improvements.
The stations join six other Queens subway stations slated for accessibility improvements under the 2020-2024 Capital Plan. Those stations are Beach 67th Street on the A line, Briarwood on the E/F line, Broadway on the N/W line, Woodhaven Boulevard on the M/R line, Steinway Street on the M/R line and Rockaway Boulevard on the A line.
NYC Transit’s Senior Advisor for Systemwide Accessibility Alex Elegudin said in a statement that the MTA is “going beyond our commitment to put customers no more than two stations away from an accessible station within five years, filling coverage gaps and increasing access to key transfer points, terminals, and high-ridership stations.”
As it currently stands, entire Queens neighborhoods lack ADA-accessible subway stations. Lack of ADA-compliance along Astoria’s N/W line was the subject of a lawsuit filed by the nonprofit group Disability Rights Advocates on behalf of a Long Island City woman who uses a walker.
That’s set to change as part of the Capital Plan, with subway stations located in Queens neighborhoods like Sunnyside and Briarwood slated for accessibility improvements.
“We will continue to work closely with advocates and communities to prioritize future accessibility investments, and work internally to accelerate these projects while endeavoring to limit any disruption to service,” Elegudin continued.
State Sen. Michael Gianaris praised the planned accessibility improvements are coming to the three additional Western Queens stations.
“After years of pushing for accessibility improvements, the MTA listened to western Queens residents, activists, and elected leaders advocating for better subway access. These improvements will go a long way to making our subway more accessible to all,” said Gianaris said. “While there is still a long way to go in making the entire subway system 100% accessible, these elevators represent a critical step forward.”
Is providing accessible design a shared responsibility?
“Nearly thirty years after the landmark Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was signed, accessibility for disabled people both online and in public space remains severely insufficient. New York artist Shannon Finnegan and design historian Aimi Hamraie, who currently resides in Nashville, held a video chat on October 9 to discuss their respective artistic, activist, and historical takes on disability justice. — Art in America
Aimi Hamraie's 2017 book Building Access: Universal Design and the Politics of Disability explores the question of who counts as "everyone" according to architects of the Universal Design movement.
Mobile Marketing Launches Enable, Disability-Friendly Web Tech.
To help make websites accessible to persons with disabilities and to protect flooring retailers from ADA compliance-related litigations, Mobile Marketing is launching Enable in partnership with accessiBe, a company at the forefront of web accessibility technology.
“Enable helps flooring retailers with ADA, WCAG 2.1, and Section 508 compliance in a simple, automated, and affordable way,” explains Carole Cross, CEO of Mobile Marketing. “The Enable interface doesn’t affect the design, UI, or overall performance of your website. It just enhances its functionality, so people with disabilities can access your website in a way that is best for them. It is also independent of the website service provider and can be added to any site.”
Once the AI-powered technology is installed on the website, visitors can turn on a whole host of capabilities, such as audio readers, color contrasts, movement control, font size, space size, and more. There is even a built-in dictionary for people with cognitive disorders.
The technology was developed in close cooperation with disabled persons to ensure it provides the most effective help and support. It includes adaptions for persons with all types of disabilities, including blindness, amputation, Parkinson’s disease, Epilepsy, cognitive disabilities, and more. This ensures Enable not only complies with the law but is also an ideal solution for those who need it.
Why Web Accessibility Is More Important Today than Ever Before
It goes without saying that the internet has become a crucial part of our daily life. Most of us depend on it for a lot of things. For example, a mother whose baby is sick will go online to search about her baby’s symptoms, find a doctor nearby, and book an appointment.
A busy professional who must file her taxes will most likely use an online tax preparation service for convenience. Or a family planning to celebrate Christmas abroad will find it easier to book airlines, hotels, and activities from the comfort of their own home.
With nearly every consumer (97%) using the internet to search for a local business every day, web accessibility has become more important today than ever.
By making the web accessible for all, particularly for those with disabilities, more and more people will be able to use online services, businesses will have more earning opportunities, and our society (and economy) will be much stronger.
What is web accessibility?
Web accessibility is making sure that all forms of digital media - websites, software programs, applications, digital design, and content can be used and accessed by everyone, including those who may have physical or cognitive limitations.
We may not hear about it often, but disability is a global concern. There are currently 2 billion people in the world who have disabilities, which constitute 37% of the world’s population. The World Health Organization (WHO) defines disability as having a problem with body function or structure or an activity limitation.
Here are a few outstanding statistics on disability that make web accessibility much more critical these days:
- 6% of the world’s population or 466 million people have hearing problems.
- 2.6% or about 200 million have an intellectual disability.
- 17% of the world’s population, or 1.3 billion, suffer from some form of blindness or visual impairment.
The Trouble With Accessibility
The trouble with accessibility is that it’s still troublesome. Even though the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) became law almost 30 years ago, architects—who are among both the foot soldiers and grand schemers on the road to equality of access—still face push back from clients and their own uncertainty and annoyance about having to deal at all with this still intrusive subject.
The 1990 passage of the ADA was the conclusion to a long, long period of exclusion and anonymity for people with disabilities. Its passage also marked the beginning of what will be a hopefully shorter trend line toward full integration of a marginalized population. That integration is still in its early stages.
As a person who happens to be blind, I experience design shortfalls every day that keep me running in place trying to reach the playing field. Grab bars and roll-in showers are great, but is that all there is? Such things make a space accessible but often fracture rather than unify, making it less than the sum of its parts.
Fired For Having A Brain Tumor Or A Seizure, Or Mocked For Being Disabled - Why Does This Happen?
Human nature is sometimes an inscrutable thing.
Why do some people – adults! – find it necessary to harass those with disabilities?
Is it simple bullying?
Or maybe a fear-based projection or displacement or some other defense mechanism?
True concern or belief that she can’t do the job?
Or is it based on outdated and harmful myths and stereotypes and fears of being around someone with a disabling condition?
Or can all or some of the above be explained by just plain stupidity and unfamiliarity with the anti-discrimination and harassment laws?