In September 2022, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed three separate lawsuits alleging workplace disability discrimination. The lawsuits were filed in New York City, Florida, and Maryland. The three cases involved a failure to provide reasonable accommodations and hiring and firing discrimination. As the EEOC filed these three disability discrimination lawsuits in the past month, alarmed employers should closely consider their own hiring processes and how they handle disability accommodation in their workplaces. Indeed, federal, state, and local workplace disability discrimination laws cover virtually all employers. Furthermore, federal courts continue interpreting the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), further defining what conditions qualify as a disability. Earlier, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that even temporary conditions can be disabilities under the ADA.
Overview of Workplace Disability Discrimination
Workplace disability discrimination occurs when an employer covered by the ADA, or applicable state and local laws, treats a qualified person with a disability unfavorably because of their disability. Unfavorable treatment can include denying employment, harassment, demotion, termination, pay reduction, or denying training, benefits, or promotion. The law also protects those who are perceived to have a disability or are related to a disabled person. Under the ADA, disabled individuals must have an impairment that is:
- not transitory (lasting or expected to last six months or less), or
- minor (even if he or she does not have such an impairment).
Covered individuals may show they have a disability in one of three ways:
- they have a physical or mental condition that substantially limits a major life activity (walking, talking, seeing, learning, etc.)
- a person has a history of disability (for example, a cancer that is in remission)
- this person is subject to an adverse employment action, and their impairment is not transitory or minor
Background of the Workplace Disability Discrimination Cases
In New York City, a security company denied a 57-year-old employee work assignments because of his disability and age. According to the suit, after the employee returned to work following a heart attack, his supervisor commented that he should retire. Later, he was told to stop reporting to work. Simultaneously, the supervisor began assigning work to younger employees without disabilities. Eventually, the company told the employee to resign. When he refused, the company fired him. The EEOC is seeking compensatory relief to remedy the disability and age discrimination.
In Florida, a company revoked an applicant’s job offer because of her disability. According to the suit, the applicant has post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and must take legally prescribed medication. The applicant informed the employer twice that the legal medication may cause her to fail a drug test. However, following her drug test, her employment offer was revoked without explanation. The EEOC seeks back pay, as well as compensatory and punitive damages.
In Maryland, a broadcasting company suspended and fired an employee after learning of her disability. The employee, a help desk technician, was diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder. The company failed to provide her with a reasonable accommodation, illegally terminating her employment. The EEOC is seeking permanent injunctive relief in the form of compensatory and punitive damages as well as lost wages.
Employer Takeaways
In conclusion, virtually all businesses are subject to state, federal, or local laws prohibiting workplace disability discrimination. Coverage of the law breaks down thusly:
- Employers with 15 or more employees must comply with the ADA, in addition to any applicable state or local laws.
- State or local law covers those with less than 15 employees. (Laws vary by state, city, or county.)
On the whole, employers must provide reasonable accommodations to individuals with qualified disabilities upon request. This applies whether the individual has or is “regarded as having” a qualifying condition. There are exceptions for instances where the requested modification poses an “undue hardship” for the business.