Dallas Business Lawyer Blog

AT and T Settles Over Diabetes Disability Discrimination Claim - Dallas, Texas

 

AT&T Services Inc. agreed to pay $60,000 to an employee who claimed that he was denied a position in the company because he has type 2 diabetes. In 2007, Michael Rappe applied to be a splicer technician. The plaintiff claimed that the company violated the Americans With Disabilities Act by not hiring him. Plaintiff's counsel noted that Rappe had performed a similar job for AT&T for many years after his diagnosis.

For more information about disability discrimination, visit www.businesslawyerdallastexas.com or call 214-855-0034. 

Employers Being Sued By Government For Random Alcohol Testing - Dallas, Texas

With most companies in the midst of office holiday party season, the idea of a random alcohol testing policy is probably enough to make at least a few employees sweat a little.

Well, it also doesn't sit well with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) — which views alcohol tests as akin to medical exams, making them illegal under the Americans with Disabilities Act. On Sept. 30, the commission filed a lawsuit against U.S. Steel Corp. in Pennsylvania after the company fired an employee based on a positive alcohol test result. U.S. Steel required the random test for all probationary employees.

That lawsuit is evidence of the EEOC's willingness to go after companies that institute random alcohol testing. 

Illegal drug testing can be performed at random because it is not considered a medical examination, whereas alcohol testing is. EEOC assistant legal counsel Chris Kuczynski told CorpCounsel.com that alcohol tests fall under the category of medical exams because they are "invasive" and normally require blood, urine, or breath to be drawn.

Such exams are permitted only when the outcome is "job-related" and "consistent with business necessity." Under those qualifiers, medical exams are only permitted when employers have "a reasonable belief, based on objective evidence, that a particular employee will be unable to perform the job or will pose a direct threat due to a medical condition," Kuczynski said.

For more information regarding the ADA, go to www.businesslawyerdallastexas.com or call 214-855-0034. 

Texas Employer Pays 35K To Settle Disability Discrimination Suit

A company agreed to pay $35,000 to settle claims that it had discriminated against an employee who has multiple sclerosis and other disabilities. In 2009, Jill Roberts complained to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that her employer, Mannatech Inc., had turned her down for a job assignment because of her MS and neurogenic bladder syndrome. She claimed she was denied the reasonable accommodation of as-needed restroom breaks, and as a result was denied the assignment at the company's call center in Copell. The EEOC sued Mannatech, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mannatech argued that there were legitimate, non-discriminatory business reasons why Roberts didn't get the assignment.

For more information about disability discrimination in Texas, go to www.businesslawyerdallastexas.com or call 214-855-0034.

Texas Settles Disability Lawsuit

 

The State of Texas will pay $24 million to settle a class action lawsuit filed against the Department of Transportation more than a dozen years ago claiming that the $5 fee the state charged for disabled parking placards violated federal law. The settlement represents one of the largest — if not the largest — single checks the state has written to settle a legal claim, according to the comptroller's office.

Although the settlement deal won't be finalized until U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks signs off on it, probably early next year, a spokesman for the Transportation Department said the money to cover the debt was officially set aside in November.

According to the agreement, Texas will fund a $19.2 million pool to cover refunds to drivers with disabilities who purchased the light blue parking placards — typically hung from rearview mirrors — from 1997, when the lawsuit was brought, through 2008, when a judge ordered the state to stop collecting the fee.

The state will pay another $1 million to administer the refunds and $3.9 million to the lawyers who brought the case.

DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION IS EASIER TO PROVE WITH NEW LAWS

 

According to Texas Lawyer, employees have a better chance of proving a claim of disability discrimination.  Texas Lawyer reports:  "In the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, which President George W. Bush signed into law on Sept. 25, 2008, Congress amended the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §12101, et seq. , to be consistent with its original intention of "providing a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities" and to "provide broad coverage."

The amendments, which became effective on Jan. 1 and apply to conduct after that date, substantially change "how employers and courts are to evaluate ADA claims," noted Judge Robert James of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Monroe Division, in December 2008 in Knox v. City of Monroe .

By rejecting the narrow and exacting holdings in two U.S. Supreme Court cases and then expanding key definitions in the ADA, the amendments significantly broaden the protective scope of the ADA. As a result of the new law, employers should take a more cautious approach in their employment practices and decisions and should expect an increase in the number of disability discrimination claims asserted by employees."