Posts

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

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

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

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

Seventh Circuit: ADEA Disparate Impact Protections Do Not Apply to Job Applicants

APPLIES TO

All Employers with IL, IN, and WI Employees

EFFECTIVE

January 23, 2019

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

In Kleber v. CareFusion Corporation, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeal stated that the disparate impact protections under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) do not apply to job applicants who are not current employees. Specifically, Section 4(a)(2) of the ADEA specifically states that it applies to “employees.” There, a job posting indicated a position available for an individual with “3 to 7 years (no more than 7 years)” of experience. A 58-year old applicant did not get an interview, and sued for disparate impact under the ADEA because the stated experience requirement necessarily excluded him due to his age.

Read more

Seventh Circuit: Fair Credit Reporting Act Pre-Adverse Action Requirements Are Actionable

APPLIES TO

Employers with IL, IN, WI Employees

EFFECTIVE

August 29, 2018

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Contrary to the Ninth Circuit’s recently ruling, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeal stated that an employer’s failure to provide a copy of an applicant’s background check report and notice of rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) gives an applicant standing to sue the employer, because it amounts to an allegation of being deprived a chance to benefit. Employers are required to provide the report and notice to applicants under the FCRA so that they may have the opportunity to contest the accuracy or completeness of the information.

Wisconsin: Supreme Court Ends Practice of Deferring to State Agency Interpretations of Law

APPLIES TO

All Employers with WI Employees

EFFECTIVE

June 26, 2018

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

In Tetra Tech EC, Inc. v. DOR, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ended a longstanding practice of deferring to state administrative agencies’ interpretations of the laws the agencies enforce. Previously, Wisconsin state agencies were given “great weight deference” once certain conditions were met, preventing courts from adopting different interpretations of the law, even if the alternative interpretation was more “reasonable” than the interpretation enforced by the state agency.

Wisconsin: Disabled Employees Must Prove an Employer’s Knowledge or Intent to Discriminate

APPLIES TO

All Employers with WI Employees

EFFECTIVE

June 26, 2018

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

In Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. Labor and Industry Review Commission and Charles Carlson (Carlson), the Wisconsin Supreme Court stated that employees who claim disability discrimination must prove discriminatory intent or that the employer knew the employee’s misconduct or poor performance was caused by a disability.

There, Carlson suffered from bipolar I disorder and was disciplined for customer mistreatment and avoiding his job duties. While awaiting final discipline, he presented doctor letters regarding his disability. After a final warning was issued, Carlson again avoided his job duties and claimed he needed to leave work for illness, but did not specify his disorder. His computer activity during this time suggested he was not actually ill. Again, while awaiting final discipline, he presented doctor’s letters regarding his disability. Ultimately, Carlson was terminated for policy violations.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court stated that the employee must show that the employer’s decision at the time was based on its knowledge of a causal connection between the employee’s misconduct and the disability. The court stated that the doctor’s letters presented by Carlson did not notify the employer of a connection between his disability and his behavior at work, and therefore the discipline was not unlawful.

Action Items

  1. Employers are recommended to carefully review information submitted by employees who claim poor performance based on a disability.
  2. Employers are recommended to have legal counsel review proposed discipline against a disabled employee before implementation to ensure compliance with state and federal anti-discrimination laws.

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: ADEA Applies to Employees and Job Applicants

APPLIES TO

All Employers with IL, IN, and WI Employees

EFFECTIVE

April 26, 2018

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

In a split from an Eleventh Circuit ruling last year, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently stated that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”) provides protections not only to current employees aged 40 or older, but to similarly situated job applicants as well.