Miami Employment Lawyer Blog

Many clients have come into our Miami office after being injured on the job and claiming that their employer does not want to put them back to work. The employee usually takes time off to care for the injury, but then is either terminated or not returned back to work. That may constitute unlawful retaliation under Section 440.205 of the Florida Statutes and, as the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity ("EEOC") has recently stated, it may also constitute a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA").

The EEOC has recently issued a guidance memorandum regarding the interplay between state worker's compensation laws and the ADA. One of the issues addressed by the EEOC is whether an employer must reassign an employee who is injured on the job and can no longer perform the essential functions of his or her job because the injury resulted in a disability under the ADA.

As an example, the EEOC cites the case where a maintenance worker fractures his or her legs in a workplace accident, takes six months' leave to recuperate, and returns to work with medical restrictions because his or her legs have become fragile due to the injury. The employee's physician states that the employee can return to work but cannot walk or stand for more than short periods of time. The EEOC states that in this case, the employer is required to provide a reasonable accommodation unless there is no accommodation that will lower the risk of harm. (e.g., there is a risk of substantial harm that cannot be eliminated or reduced with a reasonable accommodation).

However, if there is no reasonable accommodation that can be provided that will lower the risk of harm, then in that case the employer is required to reassign the employee unless it would pose an undue hardship on the employer (e.g., a significant difficulty or expense). The employer must reassign him/her to an equivalent vacant position for which s/he is qualified, absent undue hardship. If no equivalent vacant position (in terms of pay, status, etc.) exists, then the employee must be reassigned to a lower graded position for which s/he is qualified, absent undue hardship. Failure to follow these procedures may be a violation of the ADA.

Continue reading "EEOC Issues Guidance Regarding Work-Related Injuries and an Employer's Duty to Accommodate Employees under the American's with Disabilities Act" »

Under the new proposed regulations to the Amendments to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if an employer denies a job to an applicant because of uncorrected vision requirement, it may be a violation of the ADA. Many jobs, such as policemen, airline pilots, firemen and paramedics require a certain degree uncorrected vision to be considered for the job. For example, the many municipalities require that applicants for police officer or fire rescue jobs have uncorrected vision of at least 20/100. However, unless that requirement is job-related and consistent with business necessity, then it could be a violation of the ADA. In fact, the Amendments to the ADA, which became effective in January 2009, provide that most individuals who are screened out of a job because they cannot meet an uncorrected vision standard will meet the definition of having a disability.

The U.S. Congress passed the Amendments to the ADA in a specific response to two U.S. Supreme Court cases that narrowed the coverage of the ADA. One case in particular dealt with the issue of an uncorrected vision standard. In that case, Sutton v. United Airlines, 527 U.S. 471, 119 S.Ct. 2139, 144 L.Ed.2d 450 (1999), the Court held that a person is not "disabled" if corrective measures allow them to function as if they did not have a disability. In Sutton, two individuals who had 20/20 vision with glasses, but 20/400 vision without glasses were denied employment as commercial airline pilots because the airline required 20/100 or better uncorrected vision. The Court held that the two individuals were not actually disabled because they had 20/20 vision using corrective measures. However, Congress found that this ruling was too restrictive and that many people with disabilities were not being covered by the ADA. The Amendments specifically overruled the Sutton decision and required the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to issue regulations implementing the ADA Amendments. The EEOC issued proposed regulations on September 23, 2009.

The proposed regulations provide that mitigating measures cannot be considered when determining whether or not a person has a disability as defined under the ADA. Indeed, in the preamble to the regulations, the EEOC specifically states that most persons who are screened out of a job because they cannot meet an uncorrected vision standard will meet the definition of having a "disability" under the law. Therefore, unless the uncorrected vision standard is job-related and consistent with business necessity, the requirement will be unlawful.

Continue reading "Uncorrected Vision Requirements May Constitute a Violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act under the New Proposed Regulations" »

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which covers Florida, Georgia and Alabama, announced this month that a disabled worker must be able to identify and specifically articulate the reasonable accommodation that he or she is seeking. Under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), an employer must provide a reasonable accommodation to the disability of a qualified employee as long as it does not create an "undue hardship" on the employer. For example, an employer may be required to provide equipment or devices, restructure the job, reassign a disabled employee, provide interpreters or readers, and may be required to modify work schedules, among other things.

It has generally been the position of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that where the reasonable accommodation is not readily apparent, then the employer must make a reasonable effort to identify one. See http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/ada17.html. In fact, the regulations implementing the ADA specifically provide that in order to determine an appropriate reasonable accommodation, the employer should engage in an informal, interactive process with the disabled employee. See 29 C.F.R.§1630.2(o)(3).

However, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal's recent decision in Webb v. Donley, No. 09-10050 (11th Cir., 2009), appears to turn that principle on its head. In that case, which was decided two weeks ago (September 14, 2009), the Court specifically stated that "if the employee does not identify a reasonable accommodation, the employer does not have to enter into an interactive dialogue or show undue hardship." There, the plaintiff, who suffered from Fibromyalgia and Myofascial Pain Syndrome, alleged that her employer discriminated against her by failing to allow her to work on a modified schedule. What is odd is that the evidence showed that her employer had previously allowed her to work a modified schedule in the past. The Court, however, held that just because the employer allowed the employee to work a modified schedule in the past, it does not mean that the accommodation requested is reasonable. It seems that the basis of the Court's decision was that the employee did not offer any other type of reasonable accommodation.

While it is unclear whether the Webb decision will withstand legal scrutiny, the lesson to be learned is that a disabled employee must be proactive and suggest numerous reasonable accommodations to his or her employer. Insisting on a single type of accommodation, even if such an accommodation was provided in the past, may be held to be unreasonable. Therefore, a disabled employee should provide and suggest to his or her employer several alternative reasonable accommodations that will allow him or or to perform the job.

Continue reading "A Disabled Employee Must Identify the Reasonable Accommodation Being Requested and Ought to Provide Alternative Suggestions" »

Section 599.221(8) of the Florida Statutes provides that food and hotel workers that have a communicable disease cannot be employed by a licensed food and hotel establishment. That requirement, however, may be a violation of federal law. Specifically, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) states that employers are required to provide a "reasonable accommodation" to the known disability of an employee, except in the case that it creates and an "undue hardship" on the business. This means that the employer must change aspects of the job so that the individual with a disability can perform the job. However, the employer is not required to provide a reasonable accommodation if it causes significant difficulty or costs the employer a lot of money, taking into account the size and financial resources of the employer. In addition, Under Title II of the ADA (the public accommodation provisions), a license in any occupation cannot be denied simply because the candidate for the license has been diagnosed with HIV or AIDS.

With respect to occupations in food service and hotel establishments, a recent Guidance Memorandum issued by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), which is the government agency charged with enforcement of the public accommodation provisions of the ADA, gives us an indication as to such restrictions will be viewed. In its Guidance Memorandum, the DOJ clarified that the ADA protects individuals with HIV and AIDS in professions such as barbering, massage therapy and home health care assistance. More specifically, the Guidance Memorandum states that public and private licensing agencies are prohibited from denying a license to an individual because of he or she has been diagnosed with HIV or AIDS. According to the DOJ, individuals with HIV and AIDS still face obstacles in obtaining state licensure in these occupations because of what it termed "overly broad state licensure requirements." The DOJ reasoned that "excluding individuals with HIV under these licensure requirements is unnecessary and discriminates against these individuals in violation of the ADA" because HIV is not communicated through casual contact. As a result, the DOJ stated that agencies that required a doctor's certification that an individual is free from "communicable diseases" must exclude diseases not transmitted through casual contact, such as HIV.

Based on this rationale, Florida laws that requires food service and hotel workers to be free from communicable diseases are overly broad and may be a violation of federal law. Specifically, Florida law (Section 599.221(8)) provides that "[a] person, while suffering from any contagious or communicable disease, while a carrier of such disease, or while afflicted with boils or infected wounds or sores, may not be employed by any establishment licensed under this chapter [food and hotel services], in any capacity whereby there is a likelihood such disease could be transmitted to other individuals." As indicated by the DOJ Guidance Memorandum, that law must exclude diseases not communicated through casual contact, such as HIV. To make matters worse, the Florida Division of Hotels and Restaurants also provides that Public Food Service Catering Establishment employees "must be free of open sores and skin infections, respiratory infections, upset stomach, diarrhea or other communicable diseases." That requirement may also be a violation of federal law.

Under the ADA, individuals can be denied employment or access to opportunities only if they pose a "direct threat" to the health or safety of themselves or others that could not be eliminated through a reasonable accommodation. But irrational fears and stereotypes cannot result in a determination that there is a direct threat to public safety. As the DOJ states, "[p]eople with HIV or AIDS should not be denied access to their chosen profession because of outdated laws or unfounded stereotypes and fears."

Continue reading "Florida's Requirement that Food Service and Hotel Workers Must be free of HIV/AIDS may be a Violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act" »