Posts

Seventh Circuit: ADA Reasonable Accommodation and Discrimination Claims Tempered by Employee Behavior

/0 Comments/in /by

APPLIES TO

All Employers with IL, IN, and WI Employees

EFFECTIVE

July 23, 2019

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

In Graham v. Artic Zone Iceplex, LLC, a former employee claimed a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by the employer for (1) failure to provide reasonable accommodations of his disability, and (2) terminating him due to his disability. The Court explained that identifying a “reasonable accommodation” for an employee requires input from both employee and employer, and is a collaborative effort. This includes notice by the disabled employee to the employer if an accommodation provided does not meet the employee’s needs. If the employee fails to provide sufficient information in this regard, the employer cannot be held liable for failing to accommodate the employee.

Read more

Sixth Circuit: Work Restrictions Do Not Equate to a Disability Under the ADA

/0 Comments/in /by

APPLIES TO

All Employers with MI, KY, OH, and TN Employees

EFFECTIVE

June 7, 2019

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

In Booth v. Nissan North America, Inc., the Sixth Circuit stated that just because an employee has physical work restrictions does not equate to being “disabled” under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). A person is disabled under the ADA if they have a (1) “physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities,” (2) “a record of such impairment,” or (3) is “regarded as having such an impairment.”

Read more

Seventh Circuit: Obesity is a Disability Under the ADA Under Limited Circumstances

/0 Comments/in /by

APPLIES TO

All Employers with IL, IN, and WI Employees

EFFECTIVE

June 12, 2019

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

In Richardson v. Chicago Transit Authority, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeal stated that obesity would only be considered a disability under the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) if the obesity is caused by a physiological disorder or condition.  This decision aligns the Seventh Circuit with the Second, Sixth, and Eighth Circuit courts.

Generally, employers covered by the ADA are required to provide disabled employees with reasonable accommodations that will allow the disabled person to perform the essential function of their job.  Richardson provides employers with guidance on how the ADA applies to obesity.  If an obese individual’s condition prevents them from performing essential job duties, or threatens the safety of others, employers may still need to engage in the interactive process to determine if the individual’s condition qualifies under the ADA or other state or local laws.

Action Items

  1. Review interactive process procedures for consistency with this ruling.
  2. Subscribers can call our HR On-Call Hotline at (888) 378-2456 for further assistance.

Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser.

© 2019 ManagEase

Second Circuit: ADA Protects Against a Hostile Work Environment

/0 Comments/in /by

APPLIES TO

All Employers with Employees in CT, NY, VT

EFFECTIVE

March 6, 2019

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

In Fox v. Costco Wholesale Corp., the Second Circuit Court of Appeals stated that hostile work environment claims may be brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). There, an employee who had Tourette’s Syndrome and OCD claimed he was subject to a hostile work environment because of his medical conditions, including mocking his disability over a significant period of time and with the employer’s knowledge. Specifically, the court stated that the prohibition of discrimination under the ADA includes prohibiting workplace harassment, similar as with Title VII claims. The court indicated that there was sufficient information alleged that would allow the case to proceed. Employers should take care to consistently enforce anti-discrimination and harassment policies.

Action Item

  1. Review the decision here.
  2. Have discrimination and harassment policies reviewed for compliance.
  3. Have employees regularly trained on discrimination and harassment prevention.
  4. Subscribers can call our HR On-Call Hotline at (888) 378-2456 for further assistance.

Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser.

© 2019 ManagEase

EEOC Abandons the Incentives Sections of their Final Wellness Regulations

/0 Comments/in /by

APPLIES TO

All Employers

EFFECTIVE

January 1, 2019

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Effective January 1, 2019, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) removed the incentives section of its final regulations on wellness programs under the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The EEOC regulations previously addressed how the ADA and GINA applied to employee health and wellness programs, including set limits on incentives that could be offered by wellness programs (e.g., for submitting to a wellness medical exam).

In light of the EEOC’S actions, employers are now faced with limited guidance on how financial incentives may be offered as part of their wellness programs.  The EEOC stated new proposed regulations may be forthcoming, but are unlikely to be released before June 2019. Employers should review wellness programs with legal counsel and look for the EEOC’s updated guidance in the future.

Action Items

  1. Have wellness programs reviewed for compliance.
  2. Subscribers can call our HR On-Call Hotline at (888) 378-2456 for further assistance.

Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser.

© 2019 ManagEase

Ninth Circuit: Requiring Applicant to Pay for Pre-Hire Medical Testing Violated ADA

/0 Comments/in /by

APPLIES TO

Employers with 15 or more AK, AZ, CA, HI, ID, MT, NV, OR, WA, Guam, and Northern Mariana Islands Employees

EFFECTIVE

August 29, 2018

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal recently stated that an employer violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by requiring a job applicant to obtain, and pay for, additional medical testing as part of a condition of employment.

Read more

Sixth Circuit: Full-Time Work is Not an Essential Job Function Under the ADA

/0 Comments/in /by

APPLIES TO

Employers with KY, MI, OH, and TN Employees

EFFECTIVE

July 17, 2018

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

In Hostettler v. College of Wooster, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeal recently determined that an employer could not make full-time work an essential function of a job so as to justify failing to accommodate an employee under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). There, the employee suffered from post-partum depression and, based on her physician’s instruction, obtained approval to work part-time. However, her supervisor felt that the employee’s part-time work schedule burdened others in the department. When the employee submitted an updated medical certification requiring continued part-time employment, the supervisor terminated her based on her inability to return full-time.

Read more

Seventh Circuit: Defines Application of the Ministerial Exception in Discrimination Claims

/0 Comments/in /by

APPLIES TO

All Employers with IL, IN, WI Employees

EFFECTIVE

February 13, 2018

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

In Miriam Grussgott v. Milwaukee Jewish Day School, Inc., the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeal used a “totality of circumstances” approach to determine that a Hebrew teacher’s position was ministerial in nature, rendering her ineligible to pursue an employment discrimination claim under the Americans with Disability Act.

In 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court used four factors to determine whether an employee’s role is ministerial: (1) formal job position title, (2) substance of the position based on the title, (3) the employee’s use of the title, and (4) the religious functions the employee performed for the religious institution. Here, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeal used these factors to analyze the employee’s claim, and indicated that the factors must be reviewed under the totality of the circumstances. Specifically, although the employee’s job title of “Hebrew teacher” was not ministerial nor did she hold herself out as a religious leader, when looking at the totality of the circumstances, the court stated that the facts supporting the substance of the job title and her actual job functions outweighed those considerations.

The Seventh Circuit’s decision emphasizes the need to clearly communicate an employee’s job title, duties, and the organization’s expectations.

Action Items

  1. Have job descriptions reviewed for consistency with ministerial duties, if applicable.
  2. Subscribers can call our HR On-Call Hotline at (888) 378-2456 for further assistance.

Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser.

© 2018 ManagEase

Seventh Circuit: Additional Months of Leave after FMLA not a Reasonable Accommodation

/0 Comments/in /by

APPLIES TO

All Employers of IL, IN, WI Employees

EFFECTIVE

September 20, 2017

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Employers may already know that certain types of leaves of absence may qualify as a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).  However, the Seventh Circuit recently confirmed that an employee’s request to take additional months of leave after exhausting his FMLA allotment was not a reasonable accommodation under the ADA.

Read more

Connecticut: Federal Law Does Not Preempt Medical Marijuana Protections for Employees under State Law

/0 Comments/in /by

APPLIES TO

All Employers with CT Employees

EFFECTIVE

August 8, 2017

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

In Noffsinger v. SSC Niantic Operating Company LLC, a Connecticut federal district court stated that federal law concerning unlawful marijuana use does not necessarily preempt state-level protections for marijuana users.  In this case, Connecticut’s Palliative Use of Marijuana Act (“PUMA”) was found to preempt a handful of federal statutes when applied to the employment context.  This decision could have a major impact on employers who currently implement a zero-tolerance substance abuse policy in the workplace.

Read more