Category Archives: Disability Discrimination

AutoZone hit with $600,000 verdict in disability discrimination case

June 6th, 2011

A federal court jury in Peoria has returned a verdict of $600,000 against AutoZone, Inc. for failing to provide a reasonable accommodation to a disabled sales manager, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced today. An additional claim for $115,000 in back pay will be decided by the presiding judge at a later date.
In the lawsuit brought by the EEOC, AutoZone was charged with requiring a sales manager to perform certain cleaning tasks, including mopping floors, that violated his medical restrictions. The sales manager, who worked at the company’s Macomb, Ill., retail store until 2003, is disabled with permanent back and neck impairments. The EEOC presented evidence that mopping floors was a non-essential function of the sales manager position that could have been reassigned to other employees, and that the employee could perform all of the essential functions of his job. The sales manager testified that that he asked not to be assigned mopping and supported his request with documentation of his impairment. The EEOC’s evidence at trial indicated that in 2003, new store management refused the request and required the employee to mop, leading to further injury and necessitating a medical leave.
The EEOC charged that the company’s actions violated the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), which requires that employers make reasonable accommodations to the known physical limitations of employees with disabilities. Under the ADA, a reasonable accommodation may include the elimination or modification of a non-essential job duty, or the transfer of a non-essential job duty to another employee.
“Any employer who thinks that the EEOC is reluctant to take cases to trial or that ordinary juries in courts across the country will shy away from returning big verdicts in ADA cases ought to readjust his thinking in a hurry,” said John Hendrickson, the EEOC’s regional attorney in Chicago. “Juries well understand that providing reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities is critical to keeping them on the job and moving the economy forward. They get it, and employers should too.”
The EEOC filed suit in 2007 after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The case was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Peoria Division, was designated Civil Action No. 07 C 1154 and was tried before U.S. Magistrate Judge John A. Gorman. The jury returned its $600,000 verdict late on Friday, June 3.
The government’s litigation effort was supervised by EEOC Supervisory Trial Attorney Gregory Gochanour. At trial, the EEOC was represented by Trial Attorneys Justin Mulaire and Aaron DeCamp.
Mulaire said, “The jury sent an important message today. Employers should take requests for accommodations seriously, and make every reasonable effort to enable qualified individuals with disabilities to do their jobs and earn a living.”
EEOC General Counsel David Lopez said, “This is the latest of a string of trial victories for the EEOC this year. Although we are able to resolve most cases through conciliation or settlement, the agency is also prepared to take cases to trial when other efforts to further the public interest do not succeed.”
Lopez noted that other recent trials won by the agency are EEOC v. Boh Brothers Construction, EEOC v. Mid-American Specialties, and EEOC v. Paul’s Big M, sex harassment cases in which juries in New Orleans, Memphis, and Syracuse returned verdicts ranging from $451,000 to $1.5 million.
DeCamp and Mulaire noted that under the Civil Rights Act of 1991, damages are capped at $300,000 for a claim under the ADA and that the jury’s award may be reduced during subsequent proceedings before the judge.

Posted in Disability Discrimination | Comments Off

Suit Alleges Exploitation of Employees with Intellectual Disabilities under the ADA-AA

April 7th, 2011

Hill Country Farms, doing business as Henry’s Turkey Service (“Henry’s Turkey”) subjected a group of 31 men with intellectual disabilities to severe abuse and discrimination for more than 20 years, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleged in a lawsuit filed today in Davenport, Iowa. The company is based in Goldthwaite, Texas, but the work and abuse occurred in West Liberty and Atalissa, Iowa.
According to the lawsuit, No. 3:11-cv-0004 CRW-TJS , filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, Henry’s Turkey exploited these workers, whose jobs involved eviscerating turkeys, because their intellectual disabilities made them particularly vulnerable and unaware of the extent to which their legal rights were being denied. The affected men lived in Muscatine County, Iowa, where they worked for 20 years as part of a contract between Henry’s Turkey and West Liberty Foods, an Iowa turkey processing plant.
“This case is a stark reminder of how important it is for the EEOC to ensure that the Americans with Disabilities Act is fully enforced,” said EEOC Chair Jacqueline A. Berrien. “Workers with intellectual disabilities should never be subjected to the demeaning and discriminatory treatment alleged in this case.”
Specifically, the complaint alleges that that the owners and staffers of Henry’s Turkey denied the workers lawful wages, paying them only $65 a month for full-time work; subjected them to abusive verbal and physical harassment; restricted their freedom of movement; and imposed other harsh terms and conditions of employment such as requiring them to live in deplorable and sub-standard living conditions, and failing to provide adequate medical care when needed.
Verbal abuses included frequently referring to the workers as “retarded”, “dumb ass” and “stupid”. Class members reported acts of physical abuse including hitting, kicking, at least one case of handcuffing, and forcing the disabled workers to carry heavy weights as punishment. The Henry’s Turkey supervisors, also the workers’ purported caretakers, were often dismissive of complaints of injuries or pain.
Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), as amended by the Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act (ADAAA), which prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability, including intellectual disabilities, in terms and conditions of employment and wages; and bars disability-based harassment. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to resolve the matter through conciliation.
“This case illustrates the importance of continued vigorous enforcement of the law in this area. The victims in this case were subject to a hostile work environment and discriminatory treatment because of their disability,” said P. David Lopez, EEOC General Counsel. “The EEOC stands ready to litigate such cases, wherever in our nation such employment discrimination might take place, to make victims whole and to bring workplaces into compliance with the ADA.”
The EEOC will seek to recover lost wages for two years prior to the time that the Henry’s Turkey operations were brought to a halt in 2009. The EEOC seeks amounts consistent with minimum wages and based on pay levels commensurate with the work performed by non-disabled workers occupying the same job positions. The agency will also seek the award of compensatory and punitive damages resulting from adverse employment actions and abusive treatment. During its investigation, the EEOC worked closely with Disability Rights Iowa, an organization that works to advance and protect the rights of people with disabilities and its Executive Director, Sylvia Piper.
“The isolation and exploitation these men suffered for many years, while the fruits of their labor were cruelly consumed by their employer, cannot be explained away by good intentions, nor can the violations of the ADA be excused as antiquated social policy,” said Robert A. Canino, Regional Attorney of the EEOC’s Dallas District Office, which investigated the case and is bringing the lawsuit. “Our society has come a long way in learning how persons with intellectual disabilities should be fully integrated into the mainstream workplace, without having to compromise their human dignity. The ADA provided us with a law enforcement tool to ensure fair treatment for persons with physical and mental disabilities. We are asking the court to apply this law to the fullest extent possible.”
The lawsuit follows an EEOC Commission meeting held March 15, 2011, that explored the issue of discrimination on the basis of mental disabilities. On March 24, the EEOC issued its final regulations interpreting the ADAAA, which simplified the determination of who has a “disability” and made it easier for people to establish that they are protected by ADA.
In addition to the EEOC’s ADA claim of disability-based wage discrimination, the U.S. Department of Labor is pursuing a separate minimum wage and overtime suit against Henry’s Turkey under the Fair Labor Standards Act, which is set for trial later this year. Additionally, a Final Agency Decision issued on March 8, 2011, by the Iowa Department of Workforce Development, Division of Labor, found Henry’s Turkey and its principals responsible for substantial fines for violations of Iowa’s wage and hour laws.

Posted in Disability Discrimination | Comments Off

U.S. Steel Hit with Nationwide Class Action for Disability Discrimination

October 7th, 2010

steel.jpgClass actions for disability discrimination are rare. But apparently not non-existent. If a company has a firm wide policy that violates the Americans with Disabilities Act, then a nationwide class action for injunctive relief is appropriate. The EEOC is suing U.S. Steel to forbid enforcement of one such firm wide policy.
U.S. Steel Corporation violated federal law when it applied a nationwide policy of requiring probationary employees to undergo random alcohol tests and fired an employee as a result of such a test, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it announced today.
The EEOC charges that U.S. Steel required Abigail DeSimone, an employee at the company’s Clairton, Pa., facility, to undergo a random breath alcohol test during her probationary period even though the company had no reasonable basis to believe that she had violated the company’s drug and alcohol policy. When the test showed a false positive result for alcohol, DeSimone immediately advised the nurse who administered the test that DeSimone had not ingested any alcohol in the past month and that her medical condition might have caused or contributed to the positive test result, according to the EEOC’s lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Civil Action No. 2:10-cv-01284.
After the company nurse refused her request for an alternative test, on the same day, DeSimone obtained a blood alcohol test from her physician, which registered negative for alcohol. Her doctor later faxed the test results to U.S. Steel at the company’s request. Nonetheless, the EEOC said, U.S. Steel terminated DeSimone as a result of its unlawful medical examination in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA).
Since at least 2006, the EEOC asserts, U.S. Steel has had a policy in its basic labor agreement in effect at its Clairton facility and other facilities nationwide which provides for the random alcohol testing of probationary employees and does not require the company to have a reasonable basis for subjecting the employee to the random test, in violation of the ADA.
The ADA prohibits discrimination based on disability or perceived disability. The ADA provides that once a person has been hired and started work, an employer generally can only require a medical exam such as an alcohol test if the employer has reason to believe the employee would not be able to perform a job successfully or safely because of a medical condition or if the employer needs medical documentation to support an employee’s request for an accommodation.
The EEOC attempted to reach a pre-litigation settlement before filing suit. The agency seeks monetary damages on behalf of DeSimone and other affected probationary employees, an immediate cessation of U.S. Steel’s practice and procedure of administering random alcohol testing of probationary employees, and other injunctive relief.
“Although an employer may, of course, prohibit the usage of illegal drugs and alcohol in the workplace and hold all employees to the same conduct and performance standards, the ADA strictly restricts workplace medical examinations, including breath alcohol tests,” said Regional Attorney Debra Lawrence of the EEOC’s Philadelphia District Office. “An employer can only require an employee to submit to a medical examination such as an alcohol test if the examination is job-related and consistent with business necessity. The EEOC is committed to eradicating systemic discrimination in the workplace, including blanket policies mandating medical examinations that violate federal law.”

Posted in Class and Collective Actions, Disability Discrimination | Comments Off