Skip Navigation | Sitio en Espanol | ILRU Home Page

Call 1-800-949-4ADA
for Technical Assistance

What's New:

Upcoming Events:

May 6-8, 2024, Virtual: National ADA Symposium
June 9-12, 2024, Minneapolis, MN: National ADA Symposium

In the News

EEOC Releases Two Reports on the Federal Workforce and Disabilities

Programs to Hire and Aid Federal Workers With Disabilities May Be Little Known and Underused

March 20, 2024

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released two reports on people with disabilities in the federal workforce.

“Promising Practices for Using Schedule A to Recruit, Hire, Advance, and Retain Persons with Disabilities” examined how agencies use Schedule A hiring authority to appoint job applicants with certain disabilities to federal positions outside the competitive hiring process. In addition, “The Impact of Telework on Personal Assistance Services,” highlighted the program which helps current workers with targeted disabilities—such as deafness and paralysis—perform major life activities during work hours, such as eating and caring for themselves.

Hiring under Schedule A requires the job applicant to have a documented disability, which includes a broad list of intellectual, severe physical, or psychiatric disabilities. The EEOC provides a guide for employers, service providers, and candidates on how to use Schedule A.

Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act prohibits federal agencies from discriminating against job applicants and employees based on disability. Under Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act and EEOC regulations, agencies must ensure that at least 12% of workers are persons with disabilities (PWD) and at least 2% of workers are persons with targeted disabilities (PWTD). Although participation rates have improved in recent years, they remain below the EEOC’s hiring goals. According to the EEOC’s FY 2020 Annual Report on the Federal Workforce, PWD participation rates increased from 8.70% in fiscal year (FY) 2016 to 9.45% in FY 2020. For PWTD, participation rates increased from 1.01% in FY 2016 to 1.84% in FY 2020.

“The EEOC and the Administration are focused on advancing equity for employees with disabilities and ensuring that the federal government is a model employer for persons with disabilities,” said Dexter Brooks, associate director of the EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations. “This report is part of our efforts under Executive Order 14035 to provide technical assistance and support the use of the Schedule A hiring authority. Agencies can use the listed promising practices to help increase employment of persons with disabilities.”

The EEOC’s report on telework and the Personal Assistance Services (PAS) programs at 71 federal agencies highlighted how successfully agencies adapted their PAS programs during the COVID-19 pandemic and removed barriers to employment in accordance with Section 501.

Typically, PAS programs are provided in person, and most agencies reported that pandemic telework did not affect the ability to deliver PAS accommodations. An amendment to the Rehabilitation Act required all agencies to implement procedures for PAS by January 3, 2018.

“PAS programs provide essential help to federal employees with targeted disabilities that allows them to continue being effective at work,” Brooks said. “Improving the funding and staffing of federal PAS programs may help promote a more diverse federal workforce and offer employees with disabilities equal access to the benefits and privileges of employment.”

The EEOC prevents and remedies unlawful employment discrimination and advances equal opportunity for all. More information is available at www.eeoc.gov. Stay connected with the latest EEOC news by subscribing to our email updates.

Walgreens Pays $205,000 in EEOC Pregnancy and Disability Discrimination Lawsuit

Settles Federal Charges That Alexandria Pharmacy Refused to Allow Pregnant Worker Emergency Medical Leave, Forcing Her to Quit

March 15, 2024

NEW ORLEANS – Pharmacy and retailer Walgreens Co. has agreed to pay $205,000 and provide other relief to settle a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced today.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, Walgreens violated federal law when one of its stores in Alexandria, Louisiana refused to allow a pregnant employee with impairments to take emergency leave to seek medical attention, forcing her to quit. The pregnant customer sales associate, who had diabetes and hypoglycemia, experienced spotting at work and asked the store manager to allow her to take unscheduled emergency leave to seek medical attention.

Although the store manager and team lead could have covered for her, the store manager nonetheless told the customer sales associate that she could not leave until they found a replacement for her. They were unable to do so. The store manager told the customer sales associate that she had already asked for too many accommodations. The customer sales associate had no option but to resign so that she could seek immediate medical attention, per her doctor’s advice. She miscarried later that day, the EEOC said.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibit discrimination on the basis of pregnancy-related conditions and disability, respectively, and which also prohibit retaliation, including for making a reasonable accommodation request. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana (Civil Action No. 22-5357) after first trying to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The court approved a consent decree resolving the dispute on March 15, 2024.

The two-year consent decree settling the suit applies to all Walgreens’ retail store locations in ten cities, and requires the company to maintain and disseminate policies that prohibit discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, pregnancy-related conditions, and retaliation. The decree ensures that employees are provided copies of the company’s anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation policies, and also requires training for employees and supervisors on pregnancy-related discrimination, reasonable accommodations, and the company’s anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation policies. The company will also regularly report to the EEOC regarding pregnancy or disability discrimination complaints it receives.

“Employers must ensure that pregnant workers are afforded equal employment opportunities,” said Rudy Sustaita, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Houston District Office. “Employers must consider an employee’s request for reasonable accommodation, including a request for leave, and grant that request when it is not an undue hardship.”

Elizabeth Owen, a senior trial attorney in the EEOC’s New Orleans Field Office, added, “Miscarriages can be personally devastating. No one should have to choose between getting the pregnancy care they need and losing a job.”

For more information on pregnancy discrimination, please visit https://www.eeoc.gov/pregnancy-discrimination. For more information on disability discrimination, please visit https://www.eeoc.gov/disability-discrimination.

The EEOC’s lawsuit was commenced by the EEOC’s New Orleans Field Office, which is part of the Houston District Office, which has jurisdiction over Louisiana and parts of Texas.

Pete’s Car Smart to Pay $145,000 to Settle EEOC Age and Disability Discrimination Suit

Settles Federal Charges Car Dealership Fired Long-Time Employee After Heart Surgery With Slurs About Her Age

February 14, 2024

DALLAS – Amarillo-based dealership Pete’s Car Smart will pay $145,000 and furnish other relief to settle an age and disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced today.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, an employee who had been employed with Pete’s Car Smart for nearly 18 years underwent bypass heart surgery in early 2021, requiring a brief medical leave of absence. In the days leading up to her return from leave, the owner of the company told the employee she needed to retire, or she would be fired, because he did not feel she could do her job any longer. He also made comments about her gray hair and “old-timers disease” and told her in a disparaging tone that she was old enough to be his mother.

Such alleged conduct violates both the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits discrimination based on disability, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), which prohibits discrimination based on age. The EEOC filed suit, Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-00092-Z-BR, in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Amarillo Division, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its informal conciliation process.

Under the terms of the three-year consent decree secured by the EEOC to resolve the case, Pete’s Car Smart not only agreed to pay monetary damages to its former employee but will also provide significant non-monetary relief designed to ensure equal employment opportunities for individuals with disabilities and to applicants and employees over 40 years of age.

Pete’s Car Smart will also create and distribute new protocols for requesting reasonable accommodations and reporting discrimination. Further, the dealership commits to train all employees annually regarding the specific new protocols and about employment discrimination laws that govern the workplace. Pete’s Car Smart’s owner will also take part in the training to be conducted by a third party.

The case was litigated by EEOC Trial Attorneys Brooke López and Brian Hawthorne and supervised by Assistant Regional Attorney Suzanne Anderson.

“We are hopeful the resolution of this case will create ripples of positive change about which other employers in Amarillo will take note, and that the effects will be felt beyond the term of this consent decree,” said López.

Regional Attorney Robert Canino said, “Effective messaging to staff that promotes a non-discriminatory work environment should start at the top. Acknowledging the value of an employee who has given almost 20 years of service to the job is the proper approach to a genuine assessment – as opposed to engaging in unlawful provocations and putting pressure on the employee to retire because of negative stereotypes about age or health.”

Hospital Housekeeping Systems to Pay $520,000 in EEOC Disability Discrimination Suit

Settles Federal Agency Charges That Company Fired Employees Who Failed Functions Test, Despite Their Ability to Perform Their Jobs

February 14, 2024

FORT SMITH, Ark. - Hospital Housekeeping Systems, LLC (HHS), a provider of housekeeping, food and facilities support to numerous industries, based in Dripping Springs, Texas, will pay $520,000 as part of the settlement of a disability discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.

The EEOC charged in its suit that HHS violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) when the company began requiring employees to take the Essential Functions Test (EFT) at hire, annually, and upon the return from a medical leave of absence, even when portions of the test were not job-related. When the employees failed any portion of the EFT, HHS fired them despite the employees successfully performing the essential functions of their jobs. The company also did not offer any reasonable accommodations during the EFT.

This alleged conduct violates the ADA, which requires that employers provide reasonable accommodations to persons with disabilities unless doing so would cause an undue hardship. The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. Hospital Housekeeping Systems, LLC, Civil Action No. 2:21-cv-02134 PKH) in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, Fort Smith Division, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its administrative conciliation process.

Along with the monetary relief, the three-year consent decree settling the suit, entered by Senior U.S. District Judge P.K. Holmes II, requires HHS to provide a reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities during the administration of the EFT in the future, enjoins HHS from taking adverse action against any employee who complains about the EFT, and prohibits HHS from terminating an employee solely based on a failed EFT. HHS will conduct semiannual training regarding EFT testing and retaliation under the ADA.

“Terminating employees with disabilities despite their ability to perform their jobs violates the ADA, which requires employers to provide accommodations for their qualified employees with disabilities,” said Faye Williams, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Memphis District Office. “The EEOC remains committed to ensuring that employers understand their obligations under federal employment anti-discrimination laws.”

Edmond Sims, Jr., acting district director of the Memphis District Office, said, “Thirty-four years after the passage of the ADA, we still have to remind employers of the importance of training in the workplace on the ADA for managers and supervisors.”

For more information on disability discrimination, please visit https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc-disability-related-resources

.The EEOC’s Memphis District Office has jurisdiction over Arkansas, Tennessee, and 17 counties in Northern Mississippi.

Justice Department Secures Agreement with Oklahoma State Agency to Ensure Oklahoma Mobile Apps Are Accessible to People with Disabilities

January 22, 2024

The Justice Department announced that it secured a settlement agreement with Service Oklahoma, a state agency, to resolve its findings that the agency violated Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by maintaining a mobile application that is inaccessible to individuals with disabilities.

The department investigated Service Oklahoma’s predecessor entity based on a complaint from a blind Oklahoma resident alleging that the Oklahoma Mobile ID Application is inaccessible to individuals with vision disabilities. In November 2023, the department issued a letter of findings concluding that the mobile app imposes critical accessibility barriers for people with vision disabilities. The department found that Service Oklahoma violates the ADA by denying people with disabilities equal access to the mobile app and by failing to ensure that communications with them are as effective as communications with others.

Under the agreement, Service Oklahoma will ensure that any mobile app that it creates, administers or maintains is accessible to individuals with disabilities and conforms to Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), Version 2.1, Level AA, which are industry guidelines for making web content accessible. Service Oklahoma will take other corrective actions, including soliciting accessibility feedback and requests from the public, retaining an ADA coordinator, providing ADA training to employees and reporting to the department.

This settlement agreement is part of the Civil Rights Division’s Tech Equity Initiative to combat disability discrimination that occurs through technology such as websites and mobile apps. For more information on the ADA, please call the department’s toll-free ADA information line at 800-514-0301 (TTY 833-610-1264) or visit www.ada.gov. For more information on the Civil Rights Division, please visit www.justice.gov/crt. If you believe you’ve been discriminated against, you may file a complaint online at www.civilrights.justice.gov/.

Cash Depot Pays $55,000 to Settle EEOC Disability Discrimination Lawsuit

ATM Service Provider Resolves Federal Lawsuit Charging That It Failed to Accommodate And Fired Employee Because of Disability

January 16, 2024

HOUSTON – Cash Depot, LTD, a privately owned, independent ATM service provider headquartered in Green Bay, Wisconsin, agreed to pay $55,000 and provide other to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced today.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, Cash Depot refused to accommodate a field service technician after he suffered a stroke and was subsequently hospitalized. The EEOC alleged that Cash Depot placed the employee on a leave of absence and guaranteed to hold his job open until a specified date, but instead posted his job and hired another field service technician to replace him. When the employee was released to return to work with a restriction, the company fired him, stating it could not accommodate his restriction.

Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits employers from discriminating against applicants and employees because of their actual, perceived or record of disability. The EEOC filed suit on Sept. 28, 2020 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas after first attempting to reach pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Cash Depot, LTD, Case No. 4:20-cv-03343). In August 2021, the district court entered summary judgment against the EEOC and dismissed the lawsuit. After an EEOC appeal, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the suit.

In addition to the $55,000 in monetary relief, the three-year consent decree settling the suit requires Cash Depot to revise its anti-discrimination policies and job description and distribute them to its employees. The decree also requires Cash Depot to provide its managers and human resources personnel specialized training on the ADA’s prohibition against disability discrimination and retaliation as well as its reasonable accommodation requirements. The decree also requires Cash Depot to post a notice which sets forth the general requirements of the ADA at all its office locations.

“The ADA clearly protects individuals from employment discrimination because of disability,” said Rudy Sustaita, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Houston District Office. “It also requires employers to engage in the interactive process with an employee to determine if a reasonable accommodation will allow the employee to perform their job. When this all-important federal law is not observed, the EEOC will enforce it when it must.”

Houston District Office senior trial attorney Connie Wilhite Gatlin added, “The ADA requires an employer to provide a reasonable accommodation for a qualified individual with a disability. The EEOC is pleased that Cash Depot has agreed to take steps to prevent any future discrimination.”

Justice Department Finds Multiple Texas County Election Websites Inaccessible to People with Disabilities

Colorado, Runnels, Smith and Upton Counties Maintain Election Websites That Limit or Deny Access to Critical Election Information for People with Vision or Manual Disabilities

November 6, 2023

The Justice Department announced its findings that four Texas counties violated Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by maintaining election websites that discriminate against individuals with vision or manual disabilities.

In public letters issued to Colorado County, Runnels County, Smith County and Upton County, the department detailed its findings following its investigation and asked the counties to work with the Civil Rights Division and the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices for the Eastern, Northern, Southern and Western Districts of Texas to resolve the identified civil rights violations.

“Voting is fundamental to American democracy,” said Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “It is imperative that all eligible voters with disabilities across the country have the information they need to access the ballot and exercise their right to vote in state and federal elections.”

The election websites for these four Texas counties provide important information about how to vote, such as registration requirements, identification requirements and voting information for people with disabilities. The websites also link to other critical information, including details about early voting and voting on election day.

The department found that the websites are not accessible to individuals who are blind or have low vision, or who cannot grasp a mouse, and use screen readers, keyboards or other assistive technology. For example, on all four of the election websites, menus and links do not function properly for people who use a keyboard to navigate, and posted documents are inaccessible to people who use assistive technologies. Because the election websites are inaccessible, the counties deny people with vision and manual disabilities equal access to election programs and online services provided through these websites and fail to ensure effective communication with people with disabilities.

These four investigations are part of the department’s ADA Voting Initiative, which focuses on protecting the voting rights of individuals with disabilities. People with information about these findings are encouraged to contact the department via email at TXWebsites@usdoj.gov, through the Civil Rights Division’s Civil Rights Portal, available at www.civilrights.justice.gov/, or by calling 888-473-2780. To read more about the ADA and how it applies to voting, please visit www.ada.gov/topics/voting/.

Dollar General to Pay $1 Million to Settle EEOC Disability and GINA Lawsuit

Retail Chain Violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act in Hiring Process

October 19, 2023

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. –Variety store retailer Dolgencorp, LLC, doing business as Dollar General, has agreed to pay $1 million and provide other relief to settle a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging that its hiring process violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act (GINA) , the federal agency announced today.

According to the lawsuit, after making job offers to work at its Bessemer, Alabama Distribution Center, Dollar General required applicants to pass a pre-employment medical exam during which they were required to divulge past and present medical conditions of family members such as cancer, diabetes, and heart disease. The EEOC also alleged that Dollar General used qualification criteria that screened out qualified individuals with disabilities. For example, Dollar General rescinded job offers to applicants whose blood pressure exceeded 160/100 or who had less than 20/50 vision in one eye, even when those impairments did not prevent the applicants from safely performing the job.

The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. Dolgencorp, LLC., Case No. 2:17-cv-01649-MHH) in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama after its Birmingham District Office completed an investigation and first attempted to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its voluntary conciliation process. The EEOC sued on behalf of a class of 498 applicants who were required to divulge family medical history during the hiring process and on behalf of another class of qualified applicants whose job offers were rescinded based on their impairments. Dollar General discontinued its practice of requiring pre-employment medical exams for these warehouse jobs after the lawsuit was filed.

Under the 27-month consent decree settling the suit, in addition to monetary relief, Dollar General must review and revise its ADA and GINA policies and distribute them to all individuals involved in the hiring process should they resume requiring medical exams. In addition, Dollar General must require their medical examiners not to request family medical history; must consider the medical opinion of an applicant’s personal physician; and must inform applicants how to request a reasonable accommodation if needed. The decree also requires Dollar General to provide annual training to all individuals involved in the hiring process on the ADA and GINA and to post a notice to employees on their rights under these statutes and how to file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC.

“Requiring individuals during the hiring process to answer invasive questions about medical conditions of their grandparents, parents or children violates GINA,” said EEOC Birmingham District Director Bradley Anderson. “An employer is prohibited from soliciting this information, regardless of whether the information is used to deny employment.”

Regional Attorney for the EEOC’s Birmingham District Marsha Rucker said, “The ADA protects job applicants from being denied employment because of a disability as long as they can perform the job with or without an accommodation. Employers cannot deny employment solely based on stereotypes about the abilities of individuals with certain impairments.”

For more information on disability discrimination, please visit https://www.eeoc.gov/disability-discrimination. For more information on GINA, please visit https://www.eeoc.gov/gina-genetic-information-nondiscrimination.

PNM Reaches $750,000 Settlement with EEOC in ADA Disability and Retaliation Case

Settles Federal Charges PNM’s Policies and Practices Discriminated Against Its Employees With Disabilities

October 4, 2023

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. – Public Service Company of New Mexico and PNMR Services Co. will pay $750,000 to settle an employment discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced today.

The lawsuit charged PNM implemented policies and practices which failed to accommodate qualified employees with disabilities and fired them because of their disabilities or in retaliation for opposing unlawful disability discrimination, including not allowing employees who were returning from medical leave to return to work unless they were released to “full duty” or “without medical restrictions”; placing employees who were unable to return to work without restrictions within 90 days on involuntary unpaid leave status and subsequently discharging them, without considering possible reasonable accommodations; and refusing to reassign or assist with reassigning qualified employees with disabilities to vacant positions as a reasonable accommodation.

PNM’s alleged policies and conduct violated Title I and Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) as amended by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008. The EEOC filed the lawsuit (EEOC v. Public Service Company of New Mexico and PNMR Services Co., Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-00848-KG-LF) in U.S. District Court of New Mexico after first attempting to resolve the case informally through its conciliation process. Shortly after filing suit, the parties successfully resolved the case through a consent decree.

Under the terms of the two-year consent decree, ten aggrieved individuals will be paid a total of $750,000 in back pay and compensatory damages. The decree also requires PNM to refrain from engaging in disability discrimination and retaliation and requires PNM to revise its discriminatory policies and practices to ensure that PNM provides reasonable accommodations to individuals with disabilities. PNM will also provide annual training to all employees throughout New Mexico and report to the EEOC on any complaints of disability discrimination during the decree’s two-year term.

“We appreciate PNM’s work toward reaching an agreement that will improve its training, policies and procedures,” said Regional Attorney Mary Jo O’Neill of the EEOC’s Phoenix District Office, which has jurisdiction over Arizona, Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico, and Utah. “We remind employers that they have responsibility to provide accommodations for their qualified employees with disabilities and to prevent discriminatory practices by untrained managers from becoming the company’s way of doing business.”

EEOC Assistant Regional Attorney Christina Vigil Frazier added, “We are pleased that EEOC and PNM reached a resolution that includes providing monetary relief to the individuals with disabilities who worked at PNM and who, the EEOC alleges, were not accommodated. The EEOC is committed to ensuring that employers understand their obligations under the ADA and ensuring that their policies do not adversely impact individuals with disabilities who require reasonable accommodations.”

Albuquerque Area Director April Klug said, “Over 50% of EEOC charges involve a retaliation complaint. Employees must be free to raise concerns about discrimination in the workplace without fear of reprisal.”

For more information on disability discrimination, please visit https://www.eeoc.gov/disability-discrimination.

EEOC Sues Union Pacific Railroad for Disability Discrimination

Railroad Terminated Qualified Conductors and Locomotive Engineers It Regarded as Color Vision Deficient, Federal Agency Charges

October 2, 2023

MINNEAPOLIS – Union Pacific Railroad, a freight-hauling railroad headquartered in Omaha, Nebraska that operates rail lines in 23 states, covering most of the western two-thirds of the United States, violated federal law when it terminated conductors and locomotive engineers on the basis of perceived disability, used unlawful qualification standards to screen out individuals with disabilities, and subjected the employees to unlawful medical examinations and inquiries, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed today.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, Union Pacific regularly required its conductors and locomotive engineers to take vision tests, including tests of color vision, pursuant to Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) certification requirements. They also required employees to pass a test Union Pacific created called the light cannon test. The test does not replicate real world conditions or accurately assess whether someone can identify the color of railway signals.

The employees all passed an initial color vision screening test prior to being required to take the light cannon test or provided medical documents confirming they did not have a color vision deficiency that would have prevented them from doing their jobs. However, when they failed the light cannon test, Union Pacific removed them from their positions, put them on indefinite leave and effectively fired them, despite having successfully performed as conductors or locomotive engineers for Union Pacific for years. Union Pacific also required some to undergo inappropriate medical examinations and questioning.

Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) which makes it unlawful to discriminate against qualified individuals with disabilities. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Union Pacific Railroad, Civil Action No. 23-cv-03030) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The EEOC seeks reinstatement, back pay, compensatory and punitive damages as well as changes to Union Pacific policies and practices.

“It is illegal under the ADA to terminate an employee on the basis of a perceived disability,” said Diane Smason, acting district director of the EEOC’s Chicago District. “Discrimination against disabled workers is a problem the EEOC will continue to vigorously address.”

“Everyone wants railroads to be safe,” said Gregory Gochanour, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Chicago District. “However, firing qualified, experienced employees for failing an invalid test of color vision does nothing to promote safety, and violates the ADA.”

For more information on disability discrimination, please visit https://www.eeoc.gov/disability-discrimination.

EEOC Proposes Updated Workplace Harassment Guidance to Protect Workers

September 29, 2023

WASHINGTON – Following a majority vote, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) invited the public to comment on its proposed “Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace.” The Federal Register today posted for public inspection and, on Oct. 2 will publish, the EEOC’s notice of this proposed guidance and a request for comment. The proposed guidance is available for review at https://www.eeoc.gov/proposed-enforcement-guidance-harassment-workplace, and the public is invited to submit comments and view the document via the federal e-regulation website at https://www.regulations.gov/document/EEOC-2023-0005-0001 until Nov. 1.

The EEOC first released a proposed guidance on workplace harassment for public comment in 2017, but it was not finalized. The updated proposed guidance reflects notable changes in law, including the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, the #MeToo movement, and emerging issues, such as virtual or online harassment.

The proposed guidance explains the legal standards and employer liability applicable to harassment claims under the federal employment discrimination laws enforced by the EEOC. These laws protect covered employees from harassment based on race, color, religion, sex (including sexual orientation, transgender status, and pregnancy), national origin, disability, age (40 and older) or genetic information.

Specifically, it provides numerous updated examples to reflect a wide range of scenarios, incorporates updates throughout on current case law on workplace harassment, and addresses the proliferation of digital technology and how social media postings and other online content can contribute to a hostile work environment.

“Preventing and addressing harassment in America’s workplaces has long been a key priority for the EEOC, and this guidance will provide clarity on new developments in the law and build on the Commission’s previous work,” said EEOC Chair Charlotte A. Burrows. “The Commission looks forward to receiving public input on the proposed enforcement guidance.”

Harassment remains a serious workplace problem. Between fiscal years 2016 and 2022, more than one-third of charges received by the EEOC included an allegation of harassment. The Commission has identified two harassment-related national enforcement priorities in the EEOC’s new Strategic Enforcement Plan: preventing and remedying systemic harassment, and protecting vulnerable workers and people from underserved communities from harassment.

The EEOC’s work to prevent and address harassment in America’s workplaces is reflected in additional EEOC resources. On April 20, 2023, the EEOC issued Promising Practices for Preventing Harassment in the Federal Sector, a technical assistance document which provides practical tips for preventing and addressing harassment within the federal civilian workforce. In 2017, the EEOC issued a technical assistance document, Promising Practices for Preventing Harassment based on findings by the Select Task Force on the Study of Harassment in the Workplace established in 2015. In June 2016, former Commissioners Chai R. Feldblum and Victoria A. Lipnic presented their Report of the Co-Chairs of the Select Task Force on Harassment in the Workplace with findings and recommendations about harassment prevention strategies.

EEOC Sues Res-Care for Pregnancy and Disability Discrimination and Retaliation

Workforce Services Provider Accused of Pregnancy Discrimination, Disability Discrimination and Retaliation Against Employee

September 29, 2023

SOCORRO, N.M. – Res-Care and Equus Workforce Solutions (Res-Care), nationwide job-assistance companies doing business in New Mexico, violated federal law when they discriminated against an employee with a high-risk pregnancy and disabilities, and retaliated against her for requesting a reasonable accommodation, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed today.

According to the EEOC lawsuit, Res-Care knew about Cheyenne Benavidez’ high-risk pregnancy and associated disabilities, punished her for pregnancy-related medical absences, failed to provide disability accommodations, and later fired her. Res-Care used a rigid planned time-off attendance policy which violated the law and prohibited employees from requesting leave from work as a reasonable accommodation for a disability and pregnancy-related conditions.

This alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on sex, pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions and the Americans with Disabilities Act, which protects workers who require a reasonable accommodation for their disability in order to participate in the workforce.

The EEOC filed suit against Res-Care, Inc., doing business as BrightSpring Health Services, and Arbor E&T, LLC, doing business as Equus Workforce Solutions (Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-00856), in the U.S. District Court of New Mexico after first attempting to reach a settlement through its pre-litigation conciliation process. The lawsuit seeks back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, as well as appropriate injunctive relief to prevent such alleged discriminatory practices in the future.

“A company’s leave policy cannot override federal legal protections for pregnant workers and workers with disabilities,” said Regional Attorney Mary Jo O’Neill of the EEOC Phoenix District Office. “Employers must determine what reasonable accommodation, such as additional leave or modification to existing company leave policies, might be possible for these workers with high-risk pregnancies. While this case was brought under Title VII, which has been protecting pregnant workers for decades, it highlights the need for the broader protections now in place under the new Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA).”

“It is unlawful for employers to discipline or discharge workers with disabilities, including high-risk pregnancies and related medical conditions, especially without determining whether a reasonable accommodation could be afforded to help the employee perform the job,” said April Klug, director of Albuquerque Area Office.

“Pregnancy and disability discrimination laws often intersect, especially when an employee is pregnant and has underlying medical impairments, or medical impairments caused by the pregnancy,” said Assistant Regional Attorney Christina Vigil. “Employers have a duty to provide reasonable accommodations for employees who have medical impairments during their pregnancy, just like they would any other medical impairment that is considered a disability under the ADA.”

For more information on disability discrimination, please visit https://www.eeoc.gov/disability-discrimination. For more information on pregnancy discrimination, please visit https://www.eeoc.gov/pregnancy-discrimination. For more information about the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act visit https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/pregnant-workers-fairness-act.

The EEOC’s Phoenix District Office is charged with enforcing federal employment discrimination laws in in Arizona, Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and New Mexico.

National Telecommuting Institute Sued by EEOC for Disability Discrimination

Federal Agency Charges Staffing Firm Refused to Refer Blind and Low-Vision Applicants And Denied Disability Accommodations

September 27, 2023

SAN ANTONIO, Texas — National Telecommuting Institute, Inc. (NTI), a Westwood, Massachusetts-based staffing firm, violated federal law when it refused to place or refer blind and low-vision applicants as telephone-based customer service agents, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it filed today. The lawsuit also alleges that NTI denied applicants disability-related accommodations during their pre-employment application process.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, when NTI became aware that applicants for placement used accessibility technologies such as screen reader programs that convert computer text to speech, NTI told those applicants that no positions were available that could accommodate the software. The EEOC alleges that as a general practice, NTI then failed or refused to place or refer the applicants for employment.

The EEOC’s complaint also alleges that NTI denied blind and low-vision applicants access to placement services by failing to provide reasonable accommodations to participate in NTI’s pre-employment application process. The EEOC asserts that this discriminatory conduct has prevented a class of aggrieved individuals from being placed for employment since 2017.

This alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits employers from making employment decisions based on an individual's disability or need for reasonable accommodation and requires them to make accommodations absent an undue hardship. The EEOC filed suit, Civil Action No. 5:23-cv-01210 in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. In this case, the EEOC seeks back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, and injunctive relief, including an order barring NTI from engaging in discriminatory treatment in the future.

“Placement and referral agencies that claim to work toward the goal of increasing employment opportunities for persons with disabilities should be diligent in engaging in the required interactive process to identify accommodations,” said Robert Canino, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Dallas District Office. “Screening that operates to exclude a particular subgroup of applicants who require accommodation and leaving them in employment limbo does not represent an earnest effort to place them.”

Philip Moss, a trial attorney in the EEOC’s San Antonio Field Office, stated, “The EEOC holds employers to account when they are unwilling to take required measures under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Under the ADA, an employer is prohibited from classifying qualified job applicants in a way that adversely affects candidates’ opportunities because of disability.”

Alexa Lang, a trial attorney in the EEOC’s Dallas District Office, added, “Denying consideration to blind and vision-impaired job applicants without regard to their individual qualifications violates federal law. Employers have a legal obligation to treat disabled individuals who are able to perform the essential functions of their job -- with or without a reasonable accommodation – and all other applicants equally.”

EEOC, U.S. Department of Labor Issue Disability Resource Guide

Agencies Mark the 50th Anniversary of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973

September 26, 2023

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the U.S. Department of Labor released today a commemorative resource guide about recruitment, hiring, and employment of individuals with disabilities, “Employment Protections Under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973: 50 Years of Protecting Americans with Disabilities in the Workplace.”

The EEOC and the Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) and Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP) issued the guide to explain the key roles these agencies have in Rehabilitation Act enforcement, outreach, and education. The agencies work together to support and administer key provisions of the Rehabilitation Act, and to ensure that individuals with disabilities receive equal employment opportunities in the federal sector and federal contracting.

The resource guide includes important information about the Rehabilitation Act for workers and employers, where to turn for help, examples of best practices, links to relevant agency publications, and additional resources.

Fifty years ago, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 opened doors for many qualified individuals with disabilities to enter the federal and the federal contractor workforce for the first time. The law also was the model for Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, which greatly expanded equal opportunities by prohibiting disability-based employment discrimination in private employment. The EEOC is responsible for enforcing Section 501 of Rehabilitation Act, which prohibits federal agencies from discriminating against individuals with disabilities at work. The law also requires agencies to take significant steps to eliminate disability-related barriers to employment.

“Individuals with disabilities have long faced unnecessary barriers to employment. The Rehabilitation Act helps ensure meaningful access and inclusion for qualified individuals with disabilities in the federal workforce,” said EEOC Chair Charlotte A. Burrows. “As we recognize the Act’s 50th anniversary by providing this helpful resource, the EEOC renews our commitment to enforcing this ground-breaking and vital disability rights law.”

ODEP promotes policies and coordinates with employers and all levels of government to increase workplace success for people with disabilities.

“Employers need talent now and jobseekers with disabilities have the skills to meet their needs,” added Assistant Secretary for Disability Employment Policy Taryn Williams. “This resource allows employers to build better, more inclusive workforces by expanding their recruiting methods to find the most qualified workers and adopt strategies that help them keep and advance their talents.”

OFCCP enforces Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act, which prohibits federal contractors and subcontractors from discriminating in employment against individuals with disabilities.

“By enforcing Section 503, OFCCP has assisted individuals with disabilities to obtain good-paying jobs with federal contractors,” said OFCCP Acting Director Michele Hodge. “As we mark this important anniversary, OFCCP is committed more than ever to identifying more ways we can connect people with disabilities to recruitment, hiring, training and equal employment opportunities. At OFCCP, we’re committed to ensuring Section 503 makes a transformative impact on the lives of individuals with disabilities for another 50 years.”

EEOC Sues Trico Transportation Services for Disability Discrimination

Trucking Company Revoked Offer of Employment Because of Applicant’s Back Pain History, Federal Agency Charges

September 20, 2023

NEW ORLEANS – Trico Transportation Services, Inc., a logistics management and specialty hauling company, violated federal law when it rescinded a job offer and refused to hire a truck driver applicant based on his previous history of back pain, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it filed today.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, the applicant applied for an open truck driver position with Trico in May 2021, and Trico extended an offer of employment to him on the condition he pass a drug screen and provide proof of passing a Department of Transportation physical examination. The applicant completed both tasks, but Trico informed the applicant that the company was considering his medical history to be high risk based on his answers to the company’s medical questionnaire that revealed a history of pain symptoms in the past. Two weeks later, a manager revoked the offer of employment even though no doctor had restricted the applicant’s activities and despite the fact he was able to perform the essential functions of the truck driver position.

Trico’s alleged conduct violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits employers from discriminating against employees based on disability within the meaning of the ADA, including regarding an applicant as having a disability. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana (Case No. 2:23-cv-01298) after first trying to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The agency seeks injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages and lost wages and benefits.

“It is unlawful for employers to refuse to hire persons due to a perceived disability without making an individualized determination that they cannot safely perform essential job functions,” said Michael Kirkland, director of the EEOC’s New Orleans Field Office.

EEOC New Orleans Field Office Senior Trial Attorney Scott Wilson said, “Employers are prohibited from discriminating against employees whom they regard as being disabled, even though they may not be disabled. What matters most in this case is not the employee’s actual condition but how the employer perceived his condition and reacted to it.”

For more information on disability discrimination, please visit https://www.eeoc.gov/disability-discrimination.

The EEOC’s New Orleans Field Office, which is part of its Houston District Office, has jurisdiction over Louisiana and parts of Texas.

EEOC Sues Walmart for Disability Discrimination

Retailer Based Continued Employment on an Unlawful Qualification Standard, Federal Agency Charges

September 13, 2023

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. – Walmart, Inc. and Walmart Stores Arkansas, LLC, a multinational retailer, violated federal law when it subjected a nationwide class of employees with disabilities to unlawful testing, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it filed today.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, in 2015, Walmart collaborated with a third-party entity to create the “Pathways Training Program,” including a test called the “Pathways Graduation Assessment.” By January 2017, Walmart required its newly hired hourly associates at its Supercenters and Neighborhood Market Stores across the U.S. to complete the program. The EEOC’s suit alleges Walmart terminated employees with disabilities across the U.S., including two in Arkansas, who failed the test after three attempts even though the employees satisfactorily performed their jobs.

One former Arkansas employee worked at a Supercenter store in North Little Rock, and another former Arkansas employee worked at a Neighborhood Market Store in Fayetteville. Because of their disabilities, neither Arkansas employee passed the Pathways Graduation Assessment, and Walmart dismissed both employees despite their satisfactory job performance. The EEOC’s suit said the test was not related to the employees’ job duties or job performance.

Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, Fayetteville Division, Civil Action No. 5:23-cv-05149, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The suit seeks monetary relief in the form of back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, compensation for lost benefits, and an injunction against future discrimination.

“Employees with disabilities face far too many obstacles in life, and the workplace should not be one of those obstacles,” said Edmond Sims, acting district director of the EEOC’s Memphis District Office, which has jurisdiction over Arkansas, Tennessee and portions of Mississippi. “Employees with disabilities who are successfully performing their jobs should be commended, not terminated.”

Justice Department Commemorates the 33rd Anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act Highlighting Efforts to Address the Criminalization of People with Disabilities

July 27, 2023

The Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division hosted a program yesterday to commemorate the 33rd anniversary of the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and to highlight the need to address unnecessary interactions between people with disabilities and the criminal justice system. Passed into law in 1990 with broad bipartisan support, the ADA prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in everyday activities, including in workplaces, businesses, and in state and local government services, including law enforcement and corrections.

The program, entitled “Addressing the Criminalization of People with Disabilities,” focused on the department’s efforts to combat disability discrimination that leads to needless criminal justice involvement, particularly with respect to people with mental health disabilities and substance use disorders. The program called attention to the need for more community-based services to address behavioral health needs, rather than deploying the criminal justice system.

Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke opened the program with remarks detailing the interactions of millions of people with disabilities with the criminal justice system and the Justice Department’s efforts to fight for greater access and greater equity for people with disabilities. The program also featured recorded remarks

from Attorney General Merrick B. Garland who acknowledged the progress that has been made toward fulfilling the promise of equal justice and opportunity for people with disabiltities, but that much more work remains.

“The anniversary of the ADA gives us the opportunity to recognize and celebrate the enormous impact the law has had on the lives of people with disabilities – and on our entire country. It also gives us an important opportunity to recognize the many barriers that remain, and to recommit ourselves to breaking them down,” said Attorney General Merrick B. Garland. “We know that far too often, law enforcement officers are forced to respond to individuals experiencing challenges that do not have a law enforcement solution. This can contribute to significant harm to people experiencing mental health crises, as well as to needless incarceration or institutionalization of such people. At the same time, it puts a great strain on the law enforcement officers who are forced to fill in the gap where community services have failed. The Justice Department is working to address these challenges through our enforcement of the ADA.”

“We are committed to using our federal civil rights laws to address the unnecessary use of law enforcement and criminal justice responses to people with disabilities when our community service systems fail them,” said Assistant Attorney General Clarke of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “To fully realize the promise of the Americans with Disabilities Act, we must confront issues that lie at the intersection of disability rights, criminal justice and racial justice. Simply put, people with disabilities should receive the services they need rather than being treated as criminals.”

Equal Justice Initiative Executive Director Bryan Stevenson provided a keynote speech regarding the continued systemic work that must be done to address the criminalization of people with disabilities. He also answered questions posed by Assistant Attorney General Clarke regarding ways to continue to advance progress for people with disabilities.

“When you look at the landscape now where we have one of the largest prison populations in the world, there is no community that has been more severely impacted than people with disabilities,” said Mr. Stevenson. “Our jails and prisons are filled with people with behavioral health disabilities that we have not addressed and it is an urgent and necessary issue to take on. While we can accept and acknowledge that much has been gained, there is tremendous work that needs to happen with regard to this topic of criminalizing people with disabilities.”

Finally, the program included a panel discussion featuring Former Pennsylvania Secretary of Public Welfare Estelle Richman, NYC Justice Peer Initiative Executive Director Helen Skipper and Civil Rights Division attorneys. The panel addressed various reasons for reliance on the criminal justice system to respond to people with disabilities and explored potential solutions.

The Department is also actively enforcing the ADA in this context, and recently found violations of the ADA by police departments in Louisville and Minneapolis for relying on law enforcement as the primary and generally sole responders to behavioral health calls, even when safety does not require a law enforcement presence.

For more information about the ADA, please visit www.ada.gov or call the department’s toll-free ADA Information Line at 800-514-0301 (TDD 800-514-0383). For more information on the Civil Rights Division, please visit www.justice.gov/crt.

Justice Department Advances Proposed Rule to Strengthen Web and Mobile App Access for People with Disabilities

July 25, 2023