“The contributions of people with disabilities to the workplace ought to be valued, not rejected based on myths, fears and stereotypes,” said EEOC Chair Jacqueline A. Berrien. “The ADAAA made clear what the EEOC had always asserted: people with a range of disabilities are protected from unlawful discrimination. We hope that these cases send a clear message that the Commission will vigorously enforce the ADA.”Small business must be alert to an overall attack by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to enforce the American Disabilities Amendment Act, which requires employers to hire disabled personnel if the person can perform the job.
In September, 2010, the EEOC charged Eckerd Corporation, a nationwide drug store chain doing business as Rite Aid (EEOC v. Eckerd Corporation), for refusing a reasonable accommodation---a stool to sit on. The employee, Fern Strickland, had worked as a cashier for Rite Aid for seven years and had severe arthritis of her knees. She was given a stool to sit on, and was able to carry out her work with satisfaction until a new manager “didn’t like the idea” that Strickland used a stool. She was terminated because the manager refused to accommodate her disability “indefinitely.”
This violated Title I of the ADA. The EEOC filed suit after first trying to reach a voluntary settlement, and is seeking back pay as well as compensatory and punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief designed to prevent such violations in the future.
Compensatory damages compensate the claimant for things actually accountably lost---wages, past, present and future, mental and emotional anguish, pain and suffering, etc. Punitive damages are where companies get fried through “punishment” or to make an example. Juries have zero tolerance of such incidents as in the Strickland case and a large damage award is expected. Could this manager have kept the stool?
Was this an error in hiring this guy? You bet!
No comments:
Post a Comment