Selected List of Pending and Resolved Cases Under the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act

(as of June 11, 2012)

PENDING:

Christian Care Center of Johnson City: (E.D. Tenn.) filed on 5/16/12 by Memphis District Office - The Commission alleges that Defendant, a provider of nursing home facilities and services, violated the ADA by terminating Charging Party subsequent to learning of the Charging Party's HIV-positive status.

AT &T: (N.D. Ind.) filed on 5/7/2012 by St. Louis District Office - Charging Party had Hepatitis C and was granted short-term disability leave to have Interferon treatments. The treatments lasted for 8 months and affected her ability to walk, stand, think, and concentrate. Four of the 8 months of her leave were concurrent with FMLA. When her FMLA was exhausted, she continued on paid STD leave. When she returned from leave, she was fired because her short-term disability leave was chargeable under AT&T's attendance policy. The Commission alleges that Defendant failed to provide CP with non-chargeable leave as a reasonable accommodation and discharged her because of her disability.

CTW L.L.C: (W.D. Tex.) filed on 4/16/12 by Dallas District Office - Charging Party has a hearing impairment. While interviewing for a cook position with Defendant, a Wendy's franchisee, the Commission alleges that Defendant denied employment to Charging Party because of his disability, in violation of ADA.

Charlotte Renaissance LLC/Golden Living Center-Dartmouth: (W.D. N.C.) filed on 3/19/12 by Charlotte District Office - The Commission alleges that Defendant, a nursing home, discriminated against Charging Party by refusing her request for medical leave after learning of her hospitalization for major depressive disorder. The complaint also alleges that Charging Party was subsequently terminated because of her disability, in violation of the ADA.

Heartland Automotive Services, Inc.: (W.D. Tenn.) filed on 1/24/12 by Memphis District Office- The Commission alleges that Defendant, the nation's largest Jiffy Lube franchisee, violated the ADA by refusing to hire Charging Party because he suffers from a hearing impairment.

Rite Aid: (N.D. Ga.) filed 9/7/10 by Atlanta District Office - Charging Party, a cashier, has severe arthritis and is unable to walk and stand for long periods of time. The complaint alleges that Defendant, a drugstore chain, discriminated against the Charging Party by failing to provide a reasonable accommodation and subsequently discharging her because of her disability.

Tri City Comprehensive Community Mental Health Center: (N.D. Ind.) filed 11/8/10 by Indianapolis District Office - The Commission alleges that Defendant, a large Northern Indiana operator of community mental health facilities, violated the ADA by refusing to accommodate Charging Party's disability when she required leave for breast cancer treatment and subsequently discharged her because of her disability.

Evergreen Alliance Golf Limited, L.P: (D. Ariz.) filed 4/5/11 by Phoenix District Office - The Commission alleges that Defendant, the parent company of Arrowhead Country Club in Glendale, Arizona, allegedly retaliated against Charging Party, who has cerebral palsy, after he complained of a discriminatory remark made by a new manager. Defendant, in violation of the ADA, also reduced Charging Party's sales responsibilities, set unattainable sales goals, disciplined him, and subsequently discharged him due to this disability and in retaliation for his complaint.

Gannett Company, Inc. and Gannett Media Technologies, Inc.: (D. Ariz.) filed 4/6/11 by Phoenix District Office - The Commission alleges that Defendant, an international news and information company, violated the ADA when it discharged Charging Party on the first day after she returned from a medical leave of absence for her mental disability. Defendant discharged Charging Party even though she exceeded expectations as an application support analyst and was up for a promotion when she went on medical leave.

Dollar General Store: (S.D. Ind.) filed 4/26/11 by Houston District Office - The Commission alleges that Defendant discharged Charging Party because of his disabilities, Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), bi-polar disorder, and spondylosis, and because it regarded him as disabled even though he was qualified and could perform the essential functions of his job as a part time sales associate or stocker.

Dolgencorp, LLC, d/b/a Dollar General Store: (M.D. N.C.) filed 6/6/11 by Indianapolis District Office - The Commission alleges that Defendant failed to provide a reasonable accommodation to an employee with dyslexia and then demoted him because of his disability.

Johns Hopkins Home Care Group, Inc: (D. Md.) filed 7/12/11 by Philadelphia District Office - The Commission alleges that Charging Party, a registered nurse, was employed as a pediatric case manager with Defendant when she was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2009. Defendant, a full-service home health care provider, refused to provide Charging Party with reasonable accommodations, despite her being released to return to work. Charging Party filed an EEOC charge against Defendant for its failure to accommodate her, and Defendant subjected her to adverse employment actions, including discharging her, due to her disability and in retaliation for her filing a charge.

JES Personnel Consultants, Inc. d/b/a Genie Temporary Service: (N.D. Ill.) filed 7/28/11 by Chicago District Office - The Commission alleges that Defendant, a temporary employment agency, refused to allow Charging Party to return to work because of his epilepsy.

Ryla Teleservices: (N.D. Ga.) filed 8/8/11 by Atlanta District Office - The Commission alleges that Defendant, a call center service company, failed to accommodate Charging Party, a customer service representative, and discharged her because of her disability, bi-polar disorder.

Children's Hospital: (D. Colo.) filed 8/11/11 by Phoenix District Office - The Commission alleges that Defendant, a nonprofit corporation (hospital) located in Colorado, offered Charging Party a position as a Staff Assistant, contingent upon successful completion of a pre-employment health screen, but withdrew its offer of employment because of her disability, fibromyalgia, and/or her record of disability, and/or because Defendant regarded her as disabled, and/or because she may have needed a reasonable accommodation to perform the essential functions of the Administrative Assistant position.

National HealthCare Corporation: (N.D. Ga.) filed 8/17/11 by Atlanta District Office - The Commission alleges that Defendant, a long-term and nursing care provider, discharged Charging Party due to her disability, multiple sclerosis and bursitis. Respondent hired Charging Party as a part-time weekend registered nurse and shift supervisor. While filling out the new hire paperwork, Charging Party disclosed she had multiple sclerosis and a history of bursitis. Defendant notified Charging Party that she needed to submit a medical release form from her physician, but discharged her the next day, before she could get the proper documentation.

Rexnord Industries, LLC: (E.D. Wis.) filed 8/18/11 by Chicago District Office - The Commission alleges that Defendant, a manufacturer of components for various industries, discharged Charging Party because of migraine headaches and because Defendant regarded her as having a seizure disorder. Defendant discharged Charging Party after she twice became ill at work.

Kohl's Department Stores: (D. Me.) filed 8/23/11 by New York District Office - Charging Party began to suffer significant complications due to her diabetes after Defendant switched her from her long-held set schedule to an irregular schedule. The Commission alleges that Defendant refused to accommodate her requests for a regular schedule, even after Charging Party brought in a note from her doctor that explained the need for her to work a predictable day shift to help prevent serious complications from her diabetes. Charging Party had no choice but to resign her employment to protect her health due to Defendant's failure to accommodate her.

SITA Information Networking Computing USA, Inc: (N.D. Ga.) filed 8/24/11 by Atlanta District Office - The Commission alleges that Defendant, an air transport communications and IT solutions provider, unlawfully discriminated against charging party because of her cancer surgery. Charging Party was hired as a full-time personal assistant to SITA's vice president and, shortly after accepting the offer of employment, learned that she would require surgery as a result of her cancer. The Commission alleges that Defendant rescinded Charging Party's offer of employment rather than accommodate her.

America's Thrift Store: (N.D. Ala.) filed 8/25/11 by Birmingham District Office - The Commission alleges that Defendant's failed to accommodate Charging Party and discharged her due to her disability, a mobility limiting musculoskeletal condition of her spine.

The Scooter Store: (E.D. N.Y) filed 8/31/11 by New York District Office - The Commission alleges that Defendant, a supplier of scooter chairs for those with limited mobility, failed to provide Charging Party with reasonable accommodations and then discharged him due to his disability. Charging Party, a salesperson, has psoriatic arthritis. He needed a leave of absence due to his disability after sustaining a knee injury. The Commission alleges that Defendant denied Charging Party a leave of absence and then discharged him, even though he timely informed Defendant of his disability and had presented medical documentation of his need for leave.

OSI Restaurant Partners, LLC d/b/a Outback Steakhouse and OS Restaurant Services, Inc.: (D. Ariz.) filed 9/6/11 by Phoenix District Office - The Commission alleges that Defendant, a nationwide restaurant chain, failed to provide a reasonable accommodation and discharged Charging Party from his server position due to his disability, traumatic brain injury, or because he needed an accommodation.

McKinney Griff, Inc. d/b/a Merritt Restaurant and Bakery: (N.D. Cal.) filed 9/8/11 by San Francisco District Office - The Commission alleges that Charging Party, a cook and kitchen manager, has a history of seizures and had a seizure while working the night shift in September 2009. The Commission alleges that Defendant refused to let Charging Party leave work when he felt a seizure coming on and delayed his reinstatement after he had received clearance from doctors to return to work. Charging Party also alleges that Defendant transferred him to the day shift, causing a decrease in work hours and pay, and discharged him due to his disability and in retaliation for complaining about his treatment after the seizure.

Gulf Coast Homecare: (S.D. Miss.) filed 9/9/11 by Birmingham District Office - Defendant failed to accommodate and discharged Charging Party because of her disability, epilepsy. After Charging Party had a seizure, Respondent refused to give her assistance in remembering how to do her job. Defendant's manager told Charging Party, "Because of your seizures, we think it's best to let you go."

Alia Corporation d/b/a McDonald's: (E.D. Cal.) filed 9/13/11 by Los Angeles District Office - The Commission alleges that alleges that Defendant, Alia Corporation, a property management company and owner of a McDonald' s, demoted him because of his cerebral palsy and forced him to quit, in violation of the ADA. Charging Party had worked under a prior owner of the McDonald's without problems and had been promoted from crew member to floor supervisor. When Defendant assumed control of the restaurant, Charging Party was demoted to a janitorial position, his hours were cut nearly in half, and his wages were reduced. Due to the steep reduction in income, Charging Party was forced to quit.

LeGrand North America, Inc. & Insource Performance Solutions, LLC: (D. S.C.) filed 9/14/11 by Charlotte District Office - Charging Party, who has asthma, worked for Defendant as a forklift driver. Charging Party was assigned to count inventory, but he was concerned that the heat near the top of the warehouse would trigger his asthma so he requested an accommodation which would enable him to perform the task. The Commission alleges that Defendant denied this request, sent Charging Party home, and discharged him the next day for failing to complete the inventory count. Thus, The Commission alleges that Defendant failed to accommodate Charging Party and discharged him due to his disability.

Wal-Mart: (D. N.M.) filed 9/19/11 by Dallas District Office - Defendant, the largest retailer in the U.S., refused to reasonably accommodate Charging Party's disability, cerebral palsy. Charging Party was a long-time sales clerk at Defendant's Carlsbad, New Mexico store. She returned from a medical leave for surgery with a temporary limitation requiring periodic breaks from standing. Defendant denied Charging Party's request for accommodation, refused to allow her to return to work unless she produced a medical release without restrictions, which she could not provide, and discharged her for being unable to provide an unrestricted release.

McCormick & Schmick's Seafood Restaurant: (D. Md.) filed 9/19/11 by Philadelphia District Office - Charging Party worked for defendant as a prep chef and successfully performed his job for over a year. When a new head chef started, he subjected Charging Party to harassment because of his disability (deafness), by calling him "vermin" and kicking boxes at his head. After Charging Party complained about the discriminatory treatment, the Commission alleges that Defendant demoted him from his prep cook position to dishwasher and from dishwasher to utility person while cutting his work hours. Finally, he Commission alleges that defendant discharged Charging Party because of his disability and in retaliation for his complaints of harassment.

ABCO West Electrical Construction & Design L.L.C. and ABCO Electrical Construction & Design, L.L.C.: (D. Ariz.) filed 9/20/11 by Phoenix District Office - The Commission alleges that Defendant, an electrical construction company, failed to accommodated Charging Party's disability, an amputated leg, and laid off Charging Party and refused to rehire him because of his disability, request for accommodation and because he reported Defendant's actions to his labor union and the EEOC.

Pioneer Place: (D. Or.) filed 9/20/11 by San Francisco District Office - The Commission alleges that Defendant offers full-service assisted living facilities including nursing care, long-term care skilled nursing, and rehabilitation services in Vale, Oregon. Defendant discriminated against Charging Party when it refused to hire her due to the results of her drug test. The drug test was positive due to the prescription medication Charging Party took for her epilepsy. Charging Party had informed Respondent that the medication would show up in her drug test before she took the test.

ITT Technical Institute: (E.D. Cal.) filed 9/21/11 by San Francisco District Office - The Commission alleges that Defendant failed to accommodate a blind applicant during the hiring process and denied him a job because of his disability. Defendant also violated 102(b)(7) (failing to . . . administer tests . . . in the most effective manner . . .) of the ADA by refusing to provide any accommodation to Charging Party which would enable him to complete a required employment screening test.

Maximus, Inc.: (E.D. Va.) filed 9/22/11 by Charlotte District Office - The Commission alleges that Defendant failed to promote Charging Party because it regarded her as disabled by a stroke. Prior to suffering a stroke, Charging Party, a client services rep., applied for the position of sr. client services rep. Upon her return to work after a medical leave of absence, Charging Party provided Defendant with a medical clearance form that cleared her for work and stated that she would need physical therapy at some point. Defendant informed Charging Party that she qualified for the sr. client services rep. position, but that she was not selected due to her need for physical therapy.

Windmill International, Inc.: (D. N.H.) filed 9/22/11 by New York District Office - The Commission alleges that Defendant, which provides defense consultation and program management to U.S. government and international organizations, failed to provide leave as a reasonable accommodation and discharged Charging Party, an accountant, because it regarded her as disabled due to blocked carotid arteries.

D.O.E. Technologies: (D. Del.) filed 9/22/11 by Philadelphia District Office - The Commission alleges that Defendants, a legal software provider and its wholly-owned subsidiary, failed to reasonably accommodate Charging Party's hearing loss by rescinding his full-time telework privileges and refusing to provide a quiet work area that would allow Charging Party to make his required sales calls. The Commission further alleges that Defendants discharged Charging Party shortly after he complained about Defendant's failure to accommodate his hearing impairment.

Lang's Seafood: (S.D. Ga.) filed 9/23/11 by Atlanta District Office - The Commission alleges that Defendant, a seafood restaurant, discharged Charging Party, a food preparation worker, because he had a prosthetic leg which it claimed was a safely hazard.

Fox Den Apartments: (N.D. Ga.) filed 9/27/11 by Atlanta District Office - The Commission alleges that Defendant, an apartment management company, discharged Charging Party, a property manager, because she had a heart attack.

DuPriest and Sons Holding: (N.D. Tex.) filed 9/27/11 by Dallas District Office - The Commission alleges that Defendant, a print screen company, selected Charging Party, a supervisor with 38 years tenure, for layoff based on his disabilities, diabetes and kidney disease. Defendant selected Charging Party for lay off shortly after he told his employer that he would need dialysis.

BAE Systems L & A - Mobility & Protection: (S.D. Tex.) filed 9/27/11 by Houston District Office - The Commission alleges that Defendant, a Virginia-based military vehicle manufacturer, discharged Charging Party because of his disability, morbid obesity, and because it regarded him as disabled.

Bauermeister, Inc.: (W.D. Tenn.) filed 9/28/11 by Memphis District Office - The Commission alleges that Defendant, an equipment procurement company, discharged Charging Party because of his disability, bi-polar disorder.

Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc.: (D. Haw.) filed 9/29/11 by Los Angeles District Office - The Commission alleges that Defendant, an electric distribution company, failed to hire Charging Party into a meter reader position due to his disability and used a qualification standard that screened him out because of that disability. Charging Party has irreversible and complete blindness in his right eye (monocular vision). Charging Party was a mail machine operator with Defendant and applied for the position of meter reader with the company in or about April 2010. The Commission alleges that Defendant refused to hire him into the meter reader position because of his disability.

Capital Healthcare Solutions, Inc.: (W.D. Pa.) filed 9/29/11 by Philadelphia District Office - The Commission alleges that Charging Party applied for the position of CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) with Defendant, a medical staffing company. Defendant made a conditional offer of employment, subject to Charging Party's submission to a physical examination and medical paperwork. Charging Party's doctor indicated on the paperwork that Charging Party was HIV positive, and Defendant rescinded the offer based on Charging Party's disability and perceived disability.

Dole Fresh Vegetables Company: (N.D. Cal.) filed 9/29/11 by San Francisco District Office - The Commission alleges that Defendant discriminated against Charging Party by suspending him after an epileptic seizure and not accommodating his disability.

AT&T/Centennial De PR: (D. P.R.) filed 9/30/11 by Miami District Office - The Commission alleges that Defendant failed to provide a reasonable accommodation to the Charging Party, who is blind as a result of diabetic retinopathy.

Continental Structural Plastics, Inc.: (N.D. Ohio) filed 9/30/11 by Philadelphia District Office - The Commission alleges that Defendant manufactures structural plastic components, bumper beam reinforcements, rocker covers, oil pans, stamped steel seat frames, and underbody shields. Defendant failed to accommodate and then discharged Charging Party, after only one day of employment, because of his disability, missing fingers on his right hand.

AT&T: (D. P.R.) filed 10/6/11 by Miami District Office - The Commission alleges a company in Puerto Rico now owned by telecommunications giant AT&T violated federal law when it refused to reasonably accommodate a longtime employee after he went blind from a disability.

According to the EEOC's suit, Charging Party started working for Centennial in November 2001, when he was 20 years old. As a switch technician, he monitored and maintained data, telephone and cellular servers for the wireless provider. Charging Party suffers from diabetic retinopathy, which caused him to lose vision in both eyes in November 2008. The accommodation he requested would have permitted him to continue working as a switch technician by utilizing computer software that allows blind persons to use computer programs and applications. The company knew that such software existed.

Butterball, L.L.C.: (E.D. N.C.) filed 12/1/11 by Charlotte District Office - The Commission alleges Defendant subjected Charging Party to a hostile work environment in violation of the ADA, and later discharged her because of her impairment, Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV).

Wal-Mart: (E.D. Cal.) filed 12/15/2011 by San Francisco District Office - The Commission alleges that Defendant refused to accommodate Charging Party and discharged him because of his disability. During his six years at the store, Charging Party's successful performance was reflected in promotions from overnight stocker to manager of the store's tire lube express bay. Charging Party has atrial fibrillation, a heart condition that causes shortness of breath and difficulty walking. A new store manager barred Charging Party from parking in the handicap parking spaces and any spaces close to the front of the store, despite the company's knowledge that Charging Party had a disability. The Commission also alleges that Wal-Mart fired Charging Party in retaliation for filing a charge with the EEOC.

Midwest ISO: (S.D. Ind.) filed 12/23/2011 by Indianapolis District Office - The Commission alleges that Charging Party was terminated during her short term disability leave because of her absence from work. CP had requested, and was granted, one month of leave as an accommodation of her post-partum depression. Under Defendant's short term disability leave policy, Charging Party was entitled to up to 90 days of paid leave. Near the conclusion of the month, CP's doctor ordered her to continue her leave for an additional month. Charging Party advised Midwest ISO's leave coordinator, and the coordinator indicated she would "update [CP's] records." Nevertheless, during the second month of leave, Midwest ISO terminated CP's employment. The termination was effective 8 days before Charging Party was released to return to work.

RESOLVED:

2012

Pioneer Place: (D. Or.) resolved 5/23/12 by San Francisco District Office - Charging Party applied for a cook position at Pioneer Place, an assisted living facility. Defendant informed her that she needed to pass a drug test before beginning work. Charging Party failed the drug test because of her epilepsy medication, and as a result, was not hired. Under the consent decree, Defendant will pay Charging Party $80,000. The company will also train all employees and managers on disability law, implement anti-discrimination policies on inter­viewing and hiring, and make annual reports to the EEOC for three years.

Garney Construction and Georgia Power: (N.D. Ga.) resolved 5/30/12 by St. Louis District Office - The Commission alleged that Defendant failed to hire Charging Party because of his disability, epilepsy. In addition to furnishing $49, 500 in monetary relief, Defendant will also re-disseminate policies on discrimination and provide training to its employees.

Vitas Healthcare: (S.D. Fla.) resolved 6/5/12 by Miami District Office - The Commission alleged that Vitas, a health care company, refused to reasonably accommodate an employee who had hypertension. As a hospice nurse, Charging Party was required to visit several nursing homes per day, which required extensive driving. The extensive driving exacerbated her condition, and Vitas refused her request to be reassigned to a position which did not require extensive driving. Defendant will pay $65,000 and amend its reasonable accommodation policy, as well as provide training.

Stevens Transport: (N.D. Tex.) resolved 6/7/12 by Dallas District Office - The Commission alleged that Defendant discriminated against Charging Party by failing to hire him because of his disability, paraplegia. Under the Consent Decree, Defendant will furnish Charging Party $50,000 in monetary relief.

Homestead Gardens, Inc.: (D. Md.) resolved 6/4/12 by Philadelphia District Office - The Commission alleged that Defendant discharged Charging Party because of his disability, hemophilia. Under the Consent Decree, Charging Party will receive $50,000 in monetary relief, and Defendant will improve their policies and postings regarding discrimination. Defendant is also required to report to the EEOC.

Randstad US, LP: (D. Md.) resolved 5/9/12 by Philadelphia District Office - The Commission alleged that Defendant, an employment referral and placement services company, refused to hire or continue to recruit Charging Party because of his disability. Randstad had originally fast-tracked Charging Party's participation in the hiring process because of his qualifications, but reversed course when he disclosed that he had Asperger's Syndrome, an autism spectrum disorder. After telling Charging Party that the position had been put "on hold," Randstad continued to recruit job applicants for the position. Charging party received $60,000 in monetary relief, and the consent decree resolving the suit provided significant remedial relief.

Roadrunner RediMix: (D. N.M) resolved on 4/26/12 by Phoenix District Office- Charging Party was a cement driver with neck impairment. He requested that his employer allow him to be exempt from cleaning the inside of the concrete barrel of his truck once a year, or in the alternative, to use the jackhammer, which was used to remove the excess concrete, in a downward motion, as opposed to the typical upward, overhead motion. As a result, Defendant sent Charging Party home on unpaid leave, then terminated him. The consent decree compensated the Charging Party with $80,000 in monetary relief. The decree also enjoins Defendant from engaging in further disability discrimination and requires the company to implement discrimination policies and procedures, provide training to its managers and employees, and monitor and investigate discrimination complaints.

Personal Touch Home Care: (S.D. Ohio) resolved on 4/3/12 by Indianapolis District Office - The Commission alleged that Defendant was an Ohio-based home health care services provider with 50 locations in 13 states. Defendant discharged the Charging Party because of her disabilities: renal failure, COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) and asthma. The parties negotiated a two-year consent decree in which Personal Touch agreed to pay $35,000 in compensation and also agreed to provide training to all of its supervisors and managers in its Southwest Ohio region concerning disability discrimination.

Adams Jeep of Maryland, Inc.: (D. Md.) resolved 3/22/12 by Philadelphia District Office - The Commission alleges that Defendant harassed, failed to accommodate and discharged Charging Party because of her disability (bipolar disorder) and her record of disability. Defendant agreed to pay Charging Party $50,000, which represents back pay and compensatory damages. The Consent Decree requires that Defendant institute and distribute a written policy to all employees on disability discrimination and harassment, as well as provide training.

Family Video: (W.D. N.Y.) resolved on 3/14/12 by New York District Office - The Commission alleged that Defendant subjected Charging Party to harassment for Charging Party's major depression and social anxiety disorders. After Charging Party complained about this harassment, Defendant terminated Charging Party in violation of the ADA. Charging Party received $70,000 in monetary relief. The consent decree also enjoins Family Video from engaging in further disability discrimination or retaliation, and requires Family Video to hire an EEO coordinator to implement discrimination policies and procedures, provide training, monitor and investigate discrimination complaints.

BRT Management Company, Inc. dba Buy-Rite Thrift Store and W. & J. Capitol and Mgt. Co., Inc. d//a Buy Rite Thrift Store: (N.D. Cal.) resolved 2/7/12 by San Francisco District Office - The Commission alleged that Defendant unlawfully discharged Charging Party after he experienced mild seizures at work. Rather than request a fitness exam or medical documentation of ability to perform job duties, Defendant relied on its own judgment to determine that Charging Party was a danger to himself and others. Defendant agreed to pay Charging Party $50,000.

Professional Media Corporation, d/b/a/ Your Health Magazine: (D. Md.) resolved on 2/2/12 by Philadelphia District Office - The Commission alleged that Defendant harassed and discharged a bookkeeper because of her disabilities, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Auditory Processing Disorder. The Commission further alleged that Defendant also violated the ADA when it required newly hired employees to sign a "health warranty" and state that they had no existing medical condition and did not take any drugs or narcotics for any medical, physical or psychological disorder as a condition of employment. This case straddled the effective date of the ADA. The consent decree settling the suit provided monetary relief of $58,000 to the terminated employee and enjoined the company from continuing its "health warranty" policy. The decree contains a three-year injunction with continuing jurisdiction provisions to enable the EEOC to ensure that Your Health will comply with the ADA.

United Insurance Company of America: (E.D. N.C.) resolved on 1/24/12 by Charlotte District Office- Charging Party is a recovering drug addict who has been enrolled in a methadone treatment program since 2004. Defendant offered Charging Party a position as an insurance agent, conditioned upon the result of Charging Party's drug test. After Charging Party's drug test showed the presence of methadone, he submitted a letter to Defendant from his treatment provider explaining that he was participating in supervised methadone treatment program and taking legally prescribed medication as part of the treatment. Upon receiving this information, Defendant notified Charging Party that he was not eligible for hire and withdrew its offer of employment. As part of the Consent Decree that ended the dispute, Charging Party received $37,500 as well as other remedial relief.

2011

G2 Secure Staff, LLC: (E.D. N.C.) resolved 11/9/11 by Charlotte District Office - The Commission alleged that Charging Party had end-stage renal disease, a condition in which his kidneys no longer functioned and he was not able to urinate. Defendant refused to provide an opportunity to take a drug test required for employment by means other than urinalysis. Charging Party was denied employment for failure to take the drug test and thus Defendant refused to accommodate him and failed to hire him due to his disability. The parties negotiated a consent decree which provides for $30,000 in monetary compensation to Charging Party and injunctive relief.

Fisher, Collins & Carter, Inc.: (D. Md.) resolved 6/20/11 by Philadelphia District Office - The Commission alleged that Defendant, Fisher, Collins & Carter, Inc. engaged in unlawful disability discrimination when it fired two employees shortly after it discovered, through a questionnaire on employees' health conditions and medications, that they had both had diabetes and hypertension. Fisher, Collins & Carter, Inc. has agreed to pay $77,000 and furnish other remedial relief.

Verizon Maryland, Inc., et al: (D. Md.) resolved 7/6/11 by Philadelphia District Office -Verizon Communications agreed to pay $20 million and to provide significant equitable relief to resolve a nationwide class disability discrimination lawsuit. The suit said the company unlawfully denied reasonable accommodations to hundreds of employees and disciplined and/or discharged them pursuant to its "no fault" attendance policy. This lawsuit spanned over both the ADA and the ADAAA as the policy was in effect before the ADAAA became effective and continued thereafter.

Affiliated Computer Systems (ACS) and Alpha Rae Personnel: (N.D. Ind.) resolved 5/24/11 by Indianapolis District Office - The Commission alleged that Defendants, one a Xerox company and the other an employment agency, failed to accommodate Charging Party and terminated her work assignment with ACS and thus her employment with Alpha Rae, because of her vision and hearing disabilities caused by Fuchs' Dystrophy and by tinnitus. ACS agreed to pay Charging Party $55,000 and both defendants agreed to significant equitable relief including taking action to track and respond appropriately to requests for accommodation.

Finish Line: (M.D. Tenn.) resolved 6/3/11 by Indianapolis District Office - The Commission alleged that The Defendant, a national manufacturer and supplier of athletic apparel, denied the charging party a job transfer that she was fully qualified for as a reasonable accommodation and instead discharged her. The charging party has an impairment related to a right shoulder injury. The parties negotiated a consent decree which provides for $38,000 in monetary compensation to Charging Party and injunctive relief.

Starbucks Coffee Company: (W.D. Tex.) resolved by 8/16/11 by Dallas District Office - The Commission alleged that Defendant failed to provide Charging Party with a reasonable accommodation during training for a barista position and then refused to hire her because of her dwarfism disability. Starbucks agreed to pay $75,000 to Charging Party as well as to injunctive relief such as training.

ACT Teleconferencing Services: (D. Mass.) resolved 7/15/11 by New York District Office - The Commission alleged that Defendant, a provider of audio, web, and videoconferencing services, discharged Charging Party, an enhanced services specialist, because of her disability, concussion and back fracture, and because she required one additional month of leave. Defendant agreed to pay the Charging Party $40,000 in monetary relief.

Jewish Community Center of Greater Washington: (D. Md.) resolved 8/3/11 by Philadelphia District Office - The Commission alleged that Defendant, one of the largest metropolitan Jewish community centers in the country, failed to accommodate, demoted and discharged an assistant teacher because of her hearing impairment. The discharge occurred after the effective date of the ADAAA. Defendant agreed to pay $100,000 and provide injunctive relief to settle the case.

Maxim Healthcare Services: (D. Minn.) resolved 9/22/11 by Chicago District Office - The Commission alleged that Defendant failed to provide reasonable accommodates and ultimately discharged Charging Party, director of clinical services, because she had brain cancer. Defendant agreed to pay $160,000 to Charging Party's estate as well as significant injunctive relief.

Dodge's Chicken Store: (W.D. Ark.) resolved 11/28/11 by Memphis District Office - The Commission alleged that Defendant, a convenient and gas station store that cooks and serves hot food to customers, failed to accommodate and discharged Charging Party because of her disability, a seizure disorder that restricted her ability to drive. Defendant agreed to pay $190,000 to settle the suit. In addition to monetary relief, the terms of the 30-month consent decree require that the defendants create a disability policy in its employee handbook for distribution to all its employees; provide for training under the ADA; maintain records of any disability complaints; provide reports to the EEOC; and post a notice to employees about the lawsuit that includes the EEOC's contact information.

Wal-Mart: (E.D. Tenn.) resolved 12/16/11 by Memphis District Office - The Commission alleged that Defendant, a discount convenience retail store, violated the ADA when it discharged Charging Party because of a cancer-related disability and retaliated against him for complaining about the discrimination. In its lawsuit, the EEOC charged that the company denied a 12-year employee a reasonable accommodation after he had cancer surgery, which left him with weakness in his right shoulder and fired him in retaliation for complaining about its refusal to accommodate him. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. agreed to pay $275,000 to settle a disability lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). In addition to the monetary relief, the 18-month consent decree settling the suit enjoins Wal-Mart's distribution center from further failing to provide reasonable accommodation, absent undue hardship, or following proper procedures for handling such requests per the ADA and ADAAA. In addition, the decree requires that Wal-Mart provide anti-disability discrimination training to its management staff; maintain records of any accommodation requests and furnish them to the EEOC; and post a notice to employees about the lawsuit that includes the EEOC's contact information. Wal-Mart has revised and amended its accommodation policy, which it distributed to all employees, to address accommodation issues.

Journal Disposition Corporation: (W.D. Mich.) resolved 11/17/2011 by Indianapolis District Office - The Commission alleged that Defendant, a printing service and subsidiary of the newspaper publisher Journal Communications, Inc., failed to recognize its duty to accommodate under the ADA. Charging Party alleges that Defendant discriminated against him by terminating his employment while he was on short-term disability leave pursuant to an inflexible disability leave policy. Prior to the exhaustion of his leave, the employee returned back and began working part-time hours while he received chemotherapy. He was able to perform all of the essential functions of his job. When the employee's benefit was exhausted under the policy, the company summarily terminated him and made him eligible for rehire once he was able to work full-time. Journal Disposition, the former operator of IPC Print Services, Inc., agreed to settle the discrimination suit for $55,000. Since the employer no longer operated the facility, no other equitable relief was required.