Miami Employment Lawyer Blog

We filed a charge of discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently against a hospital in the Miami area for failure to accommodate a known disability of one of its medical interns. In that case, the medical intern was deaf and required the assistance of a sign language interpreter in order to communicate. The hospital refused the accommodation and flatly stated that they did not have a policy that would provide sign language interpreters for employees. However, after we filed the charge they agreed to settle for an amount sufficient to compensate the employee.

A similar lawsuit was filed this week by the EEOC against national retailer Target Stores, Inc. for unlawfully denying a reasonable accommodation to an employee with multiple disability-based impairments and substantially. The complaint also alleged that they reduced his hours because of his medical conditions. Specifically, the worker could not effectively communicate without the assistance of a job coach because of his cerebral palsy and limited intellectual functioning.

According to the complaint, Target would fail to notify the employee's job coach and parents of in-person meetings involving work issues and job performance. The disabled employee had repeatedly requested that his job coach and parents be notified about these types of meetings so that they could assist him. According to the complaint, Target had hired the employee knowing that the employee had a disability and knowing that he needed a reasonable accommodation. As such, the complaint alleged, Target discriminated against the employee for failure to provide this notification.

The complaint alleged that the company's conduct violated Title I of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. The EEOC's Regional Attorney stated that "Target's failure to provide a reasonable accommodation denied him equal benefits and privileges of employment. Despite his disabilities, the employee in this case was qualified and motivated to work, but Target denied him an equal opportunity to succeed in the workplace."

Under the ADA, an employer must provide a "reasonable accommodation" to an employee with a known disability, but not if it will create an "undue hardship" on the employer's business. This means that the employer must change the requirements of the job so that the employee with a disability can perform the job. However, if such changes cause significant difficulty or expenses to the employer, taking into account the employer's size, financial situation and its operations, then that would be an undue hardship.

Also, an employer does not have to lower quality standards or decrease production standards in making a reasonable accommodation. Personal use items, such as glasses or hearing aids need not be provided by the employer.

Continue reading "Florida Employers Must Provide a Reasonable Accommodation to a Known Disability" »

Many clients that come into our offices in Miami, Florida complain about being overworked and suffering from chronic fatigue. Especially nowadays where employees are being asked to put in extra effort, employees are asking if there is some relief. Well, recently, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that chronic fatigue syndrome could qualify as a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which would require employers to accommodate the disability. That means that an employer may be required to allow napping and to alternate tasks frequently.

Under the ADA, employers must accommodate a known disability of an employee as long as it will not create an "undue hardship" on the employer's business. Providing a reasonable accommodation means changing aspects of the job so that the employee with a disability can perform the job. Undue hardship means something that causes significant difficulty or expense to the employer, considering the size, financial resources, and the nature of the employer's operations.

In the Fifth Circuit case, EEOC v. Chevron Phillips Chemical Co., LP, No. 07-20661 (5th. Cir. 6/5/2009), the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a lawsuit against Chevron Phillips Chemical Co. alleging that the company fired an administrative aid because she requested the accommodation that had been suggested by her doctor. Her doctor had suggested that she be permitted to nap and that she be given alternating tasks. The issue arose about two years after the employee began working with Chevron. She began experiencing sleep disruptions, fevers, headaches, trouble walking and problems with memory and concentrating. She was allowed to take a two week leave and when she returned to work, she provided a note from her doctor stating that she had chronic fatigue syndrome and that she needed to be at a location closer to her home. She was not permitted to relocate, but then her doctor stated that she needed to be allowed napping during lunch and had to be provided alternating tasks. She implemented these accommodations on her own after informing her employer. Five days later, the company suspended her without pay and eventually fired her, alleging that she failed to disclose the impairment on the medical questionnaire that she was required to fill-out upon being hired.

The EEOC filed suit in federal court, but the court threw out the case stating that "no reasonable jury could find that [the employee] had a disability within the meaning of the ADA." The EEOC appealed the decision and the Circuit Court found that chronic fatigue syndrome could be a disability. The court further held that a jury ought to have the opportunity to decide whether the employer failed to accommodate the disability and fired her on the basis of her disability.

This case is typical of the results that many expect to come out of the new amendments to the ADA, which took effect in January 2009. These amendments may make it easier for claims to be brought under the ADA. Employee claims are expected to now be evaluated on the basis of whether discrimination actually occurred, and not whether an employee can actually provide a disability.

Continue reading "Chronic Fatigue Syndrome May Qualify as a Disability" »