News From the Federal Agencies

| News | Docket | Question | Focus | Calendar |

U.S. Access Board

Gregory S. Fehribach Elected U.S. Access Board Chair

At its March meeting, the U.S. Access Board unanimously elected Board Member Gregory S. Fehribach as its new Chair. Fehribach previously served as Vice Chair of the Board. He is counsel to the Indianapolis law firm Tuohy Bailey & Moore LLP. Fehribach has been in private practice for over 34 years, and he counsels numerous clients at the national, state, and local level regarding the nuances of the Americans with Disabilities Act . . .

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)

Valley Tool to Pay $32,500 to Settle EEOC Disability Discrimination and Retaliation Lawsuit

Valley Tool, Inc., a precision machine shop facility located in Water Valley, Miss., has agreed to pay $32,500 to resolve a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced. The EEOC’s lawsuit charged a sorter with sickle cell disease requested that Valley Tool allow her to take leave on the occasional days her blood disorder made her too ill to work. Instead, the suit alleged, Valley Tool removed the sorter from the work schedule, placed her on involuntary leave of absence, and then fired her because of her disability and in retaliation for her complaint about her supervisor’s comments about her disability.

Optimal Solutions & Technologies Will Pay $60,000 to Settle EEOC Disability Suit

Optimal Solutions & Technologies, Inc. (OST), a provider of cyber, engineering, logistics and managed services, will pay $60,000 and furnish significant equitable relief to resolve a federal disability discrimination suit by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced. According to the EEOC’s suit, a senior SharePoint administrator working at OST’s Hyattsville, Md., facility informed his supervisor that he had a benign brain tumor which would require about six weeks of radiation treatment, and that the treatments, which would be scheduled after work, would not affect his ability to perform his job. The EEOC charged that despite his good job performance, OST abruptly fired the administrator about one month after he disclosed his medical condition and only one week before he was scheduled to begin his radiation treatment.

T&T Subsea Will Pay $125,000 to Settle EEOC Disability Discrimination Suit

T&T Subsea, LLC, a Galveston marine services company, will pay $125,000 and furnish significant equitable relief to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced. According to the suit, after being diagnosed with cancer, the commercial driver continued to work for T&T through his chemotherapy and radiation treatment until he took leave for surgery. When he notified T&T that he was ready to return to full duty, the company fired him.

EEOC Releases Fiscal Year 2020 Enforcement and Litigation Data

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released detailed breakdowns for the 67,448 charges of workplace discrimination the agency received in Fiscal Year (FY) 2020. The agency secured $439.2 million for victims of discrimination in the private sector and state and local government workplaces through voluntary resolutions and litigation. The comprehensive enforcement and litigation statistics for FY 2020, which ended on Sept. 30, 2020, are posted on the agency’s website.

Carefree of Colorado to Pay $100,000 to Settle EEOC Disability and Retaliation Suit

Carefree/Scott Fetzer Company, doing business as Carefree of Colorado, will pay $100,000 and furnish other relief to settle a disability discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced. Carefree Inc. manufactures RV awnings at a facility in Broomfield, Colo. According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, Carefree would not hire Anna Biryukova as an assembler or packer because she is deaf. The lawsuit also charged that Carefree retaliated against Biryukova by refusing to consider her because she and a job placement advocate acting on her behalf complained about discrimination and the need for disability accommodation.

U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)

U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of Connecticut and Danbury Hospital Resolve ADA Complaint

The U.S. Attorney’s Office has reached a settlement agreement with Danbury Hospital, which owns and operates Morganti Wound Care Center (“MWCC”), to resolve allegations that MWCC was not operating in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”). The settlement agreement resolves an ADA complaint filed by a patient who uses a wheelchair, who alleged that he was denied full and equal access to the services provided by MWCC based on his disability, when he attempted to receive medical treatment. Specifically, he alleged that he was told he must reschedule his appointment because MWCC did not have the equipment or training necessary to transfer him from his wheelchair to the examination table.

The Docket

| News | Docket | Question | Focus | Calendar |

Court Denies Uber’s Motion to Dismiss ADA Discrimination Complaint – Tech

by KIRSTEN ERRICK

On Monday, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson of the District of Columbia District Court issued an opinion denying Uber Technologies Inc.’s motion to dismiss a discrimination lawsuit brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the District of Columbia Human Rights Act (DCHRA).

According to the opinion, “plaintiff Equal Rights Center (‘ERC’) allege(d) that defendant Uber – a company that maintains a ride-sharing application that connects users to drivers – systemically discriminates against those disabled individuals in the District of Columbia who use non-foldable wheelchairs, because Uber’s wheelchair accessible ride-share services are allegedly far less reliable and predictable than its non-wheelchair accessible offerings.” Additionally, ERC also claimed that “Uber requires wheelchair users to pay higher fares and endure longer wait times than people who use Uber’s standard transportation service.”

The court noted that the plaintiff argued that Uber qualifies as a transportation service under local and federal law, so therefore, these alleged disparities constitute discrimination under Title III of the ADA and violate the DCHRA.

Previously, Uber sought to dismiss the ERC’s claims arguing that the ERC lacks standing to sue either on its own behalf or on its members’ behalf. Uber also contended that the plaintiff failed to plausibly allege that “the ADA and DCHRA apply to its app, and that even if those statutes do apply, Uber’s services do not constitute discrimination and cannot be reasonably modified.” Additionally, Uber claimed that the DCHRA claim is barred by its one-year statutory limitations period.

Considering Uber’s motion to dismiss, the court found that the plaintiff “has associational standing to bring the complaint’s ADA and DCHRA claims on behalf of its members.” The court added that the complaint plausibly alleged Uber’s eligibility for regulation under Title III of the ADA and the DCHRA. According to the court, the ERC also claimed “circumstances that plausibly sustain discrimination claims under the cited statutes” and the plaintiff’s DCHRA claim was timely. As a result, the court denied Uber’s motion to dismiss.

Uber is represented by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP. The Equal Rights Center is represented by Relman Colfax PLLC and the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs.

Law Street Media

Question

| News | Docket | Question | Focus | Calendar |

Q. I experienced my second seizure at work in the past week. These were the first seizures I have had in over a year and the first ones that have occurred at work. My employer now wants me to provide documentation from my physician. What information am I required to provide and what information does my employer have the right to receive from me under the ADA? Can my employer share this information with my co-workers?

A. The ADA prohibits covered employers from discriminating against employees and applicants with disabilities in all employment practices. A covered employer is one with 15 or more full or part-time employees. An employer may hire, fire, or promote the most qualified individual he/she chooses. The ADA prohibits that covered employer from making the decision on whom to hire, fire, or promote on the basis of disability.

An employer in certain instances has the right to request medical information that is job relatedand consistent with business necessity. If an employee is having difficulty performing the job and the employer based on objective information has a reasonable belief that it is related to a medical condition or disability or that the individual may be adirect threat to the health and safety of himself or others then the employer has the right to receive limited medical information.

The employer has the right to information from an employee indicating that the employee is able to perform the job or essential functions of the position or that the employee is not a direct threat to himself or to others. Direct threat means that there is a significant risk of substantial harm to himself or others. This should not be based on assumptions or perceptions about a medical condition but should be based on current and relevant medical information.

An employer should provide a job description to the employee’s physician so the physician understands the job duties associated with the job. The employer does not have the right to a complete medical history and only information related to the medical condition in question.

An employer is prohibited from sharing medical information with co-workers. Any medical information an employer receives should be kept confidential and in a separate file from the employee’s regular work file.

If you have questions about the ADA you may contact the: Great Lakes ADA Center by calling (800) 949-4232 (V/TTY) or by visiting the contact form on the Center’s web site.

Resources
Questions and Answers about Epilepsy in the Workplace and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Enforcement Guidance on Disability-Related Inquiries and Medical Examinations

In Focus

| News | Docket | Question | Focus | Calendar |

The 2021 National ADA Symposium will have a different format than previous conferences due to the impact of COVID-19. This year, the National ADA Symposium will consist of two events—on-site and virtual.

On-Site: July 26-28, Desert Ridge Marriott Resort, Phoenix, AZ

Dive Brief:

The on-site event will be a smaller conference than usual ADA Symposia with fewer sessions and less attendees in order to maintain social distancing.

A keynote will be delivered by Haben Girma, disability rights lawyer and advocate. Haben Girma is the first Deafblind person to graduate from Harvard law School. The Symposium will also feature exhibitors for disability related products and services.

Materials and presentation handouts from all sessions will be available to attendees. Attendees will enjoy full 3 full breakfast buffets and two lunches as part of their conference registration.

Virtual Event: August 2-5

The virtual conference will be held as an alternative to the on-site conference. Attendees will have the opportunity visit avirtual exhibit hall and can even make individual appointments with vendors. Attendees will have access to all session materials and presentation handouts.

The National ADA Symposium includes up to date information regarding employment, communication, transportation, emergency preparedness, case law, regulatory updates for government and private entities and the latest on the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design.

Registration for the 2021 National ADA Symposium opens April 15th, 2021. Check out the ADA Symposium web site for more information and to register beginning April 15th

Trainings and Events

| News | Docket | Question | Focus | Calendar |