Tag: disability discrimination

disability discrimination

EEOC Disability Discrimination Suit Settles for Employee with Bi-Polar Disorder

EEOC Disability Discrimination Suit Settles for Employee with Bi-Polar Disorder

disability discrimination

A disability discrimination case has been settled by the EEOC on behalf of Cynthia Dunson, who worked for KFC franchise Hester Foods, Inc. The franchise has been ordered to pay Dunson $30,000, as well as implement training and practices which will prevent future discrimination from occurring in their workplaces.

Dunson was originally hired in March 2015 as a crew member at the Dublin, Georgia location. She was promoted to a Shift Manager shortly after beginning her employment. Problems didn’t arise until July 23rd, 2015 when the franchise owner asked to speak with Dunson after a team meeting. She let him know that she would have to hurry, because she had to leave to go to an appointment with her therapist. Upon hearing this information, the owner began to pry as to why she was seeing a therapist. Dunson explained that she was under the doctor’s care as well as taking prescribed medications for bi-polar disorder – he then inquired which medications she was taking. Dunson complied with his questioning and told him her medications. The owner reacted by telling her, “You can’t take that s*** and work here.” He then demanded that she flush her medications down the toilet, even instructing another manager to follow her into the restroom and ensure that she actually disposed of them.

Later that day, Dunson told her therapist what had happened. At that time she also disclosed to the therapist that the owner told her she “needs Jesus, not medication”. Dunson reported to work that evening, and was met by the owner who pointed his finger in her face and angrily said, “You are on that s***.” Dunson refuted his accusation, telling him that she got rid of the medication as he instructed her and therefore wasn’t on it. He replied that she “better not be”.

The following day, Dunson visited her doctor’s office. There she was told that she needed to take her medication again, as it was dangerous to abruptly stop taking them. The doctor paid for replacement medication, and took Dunson off of work for the remainder of the weekend. The doctor also had Dunson call the franchise owner while she was there to inform him of her upcoming absence from work and explain the necessity of her medication – he reacted by becoming angry and chastised her for “letting” her medical providers “tell her she needed to take that s***” and for “letting” them take her out of work. Dunson concluded the call by stating she intended to follow doctor’s orders. Within a few minutes, the owner called Dunson back and said she “could not come back to work if [she] was going to let them put things in her head”.

A few days later, Dunson’s husband went to the restaurant in her place to return her keys and uniform, and to pick-up her final paycheck.

The EEOC asserted that Dunson was “unlawfully terminated by Defendant because of her disability and/or because she was regarded as a person with a disability due to her impairment and use of legally prescribed medications.” They also asserted that the unlawful employment practices were “intentional” and “were done with malice and/or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Dunson”.

 

Sources:

https://www.theemployerhandbook.com/files/2017/06/EEOC-v.-Hester-Foods-Complaint.pdf

http://hr.cch.com/ELD/EEOCHesterFoods013018.pdf

http://www.13wmaz.com/news/local/operator-of-dublin-kfc-settles-lawsuit-over-alleged-firing-of-bipolar-employee/513560990

http://www.employmentlawdaily.com/index.php/news/kfc-franchise-resolves-suit-over-discharge-of-manager-who-refused-to-forgo-bipolar-meds/

https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/6-12-17.cfm

Disability Discrimination

California Disability Discrimination Law

The governing body of Federal law regarding California disability discrimination is the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The ADA is a minimum standard, which means that individual states are able to further adjust or change their individual laws regarding disability. California disability discrimination law is unique because it takes a much broader approach to the word “disability.” This means that California recognizes a lot more illnesses, injuries, conditions, and diseases as qualifying for disability status than Federal law.

California law states describes a disability as a condition that limits one or more major life activities. Because working is considered a major life activity, any condition that affects an individual’s ability to work may be considered a disability under California law. The California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) recognizes individuals as “disabled” if they have a physical or mental condition that limits one or more major life activities, or they are incorrectly treated as having a disability, regardless of whether or not they actually have an impairment. There are three categories of disabilities: physical disabilities, mental disabilities, and medical conditions. Physical disabilities include physiological disease, disorders, conditions, and cosmetic disfigurement or anatomical loss that affects one or more of the following body systems: neurological, immunological, musculoskeletal, special sense organs, respiratory, including speech organs, cardiovascular, reproductive, digestive, genitourinary, hemic and lymphatic, skin and endocrine systems. Mental disabilities may include conditions such as mental retardation, organic brain syndrome, emotional or mental illness, certain learning disabilities, or other mental or psychological disorder or conditions that require special education or related services.
California disability law is not concerned with an individual’s ability to perform alternate jobs; they only need to be unable to perform the regular duties of the particular job they are pursuing. Furthermore, California law makes this determination without looking at mitigating factors like medication, assistive devices, reasonable accommodation, etc. An example of a mitigating factor would be the use of glasses to correct one’s vision. Even though an individual can correct their vision to near perfect with glasses, the law would still consider the bad vision a disability, as they would not be able to see properly without glasses as the mitigating factor. FEHA also ignores mitigating factors when determining whether a condition is a disability. This creates a system that works in favor of employees.

There are some conditions, however, that do not count as disabilities. These are sexual behavior disorders including but not limited to pedophilia, exhibitionism, or voyeurism. Also not covered are compulsive gambling, kleptomania, pyromania, or psychoactive substance use disorders resulting from illegal drugs.

Another key aspect of California disability discrimination law is the interactive process between employers and employees. The Fair Employment and Housing Commission focuses their evaluation of disability cases on whether the employer provided or attempted to provide the disabled employee with a reasonable accommodation. The interactive process is an open line of communication between employer and employee, where the parties work together to develop assistive measures for best accommodating an employee’s disability. The result is called a reasonable accommodation, which enables a disabled employee to perform the essential functions of the job. In order to qualify as a proper accommodation, the FEHA mentions that any adjustment made must be effective in overcoming the limitation. This accommodation could come in the form of time taken off to see a doctor, more frequent breaks, extra time to complete tasks, etc. It is important to keep in mind that the FEHA does not expect disabled employees to be accommodated without regard for the burden placed on an employer. Instead, the FEHA uses an undue hardship standard, which is considered whenever there is a mention of a reasonable accommodation.

View more information about disability discrimination and how our lawyers can help – http://www.aegislawfirm.com/ca-employment-law-practice-areas/disability-discrimination/

Hooters and Disability Discrimination

HOO Likes Some Discrimination?

Sandra Lupo had been a waitress at Hooters since 2005.  She’s 27 years old.  Recently, she had to undergo brain surgery to remove a cranial mass.  When she was cleared to return to work last July she met with her manager.  Her manager said she had to wear a wig now during her shifts.  Hooters requires female employees to “acknowledge and affirm” the following: Continue reading “Hooters and Disability Discrimination”