Employment Law Observer

On August 11, 2023, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to issue regulations that would support the implementation and enforcement of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA).[1] Enacted in 2022, the PWFA requires covered entities (i.e., private and public sector employees with at least fifteen employees, Congress, federal agencies, employment agencies, and labor organizations)[2] to provide reasonable accommodations to qualified employees or applicants with known limitations relating to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, unless the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the covered entities' business operations. The PFWA became effective on June 27, 2023.

Most employers are familiar with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and its requirement  to provide reasonable accommodations to qualified individuals with disabilities. There is less certainty about the extent of this obligation. For example, what if no reasonable accommodation could eliminate the danger—the "direct threat"—the individual poses in the workplace?

Employees and employers now find themselves well into year two of a global pandemic. Unfortunately, some people who contract COVID-19 do not fully recover. Known as "COVID long-haulers," these individuals suffer from a range of conditions that persist well beyond when they first contracted the virus. The impacts of "long-COVID" have left some individuals disabled, by definition, under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and similar state and local laws. However, not every condition will qualify. Below, we consider steps employers can take to ensure they're providing appropriate accommodations and mitigating potential litigation.

On Thursday, September 3, 2020, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued an Opinion Letter shedding light on the agency's own ability to sue employers under Section 707(a) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The letter clarifies two notable areas for employers. First, the EEOC does not have broad authority to file a civil lawsuit against an employer under Title VII without a finding of discrimination or retaliation. Second, the EEOC must follow procedural guidelines—investigate a charge of discrimination, find reasonable cause, attempt to remedy such practice by conciliation—before a civil lawsuit may be filed.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued two technical assistance documents on opioid-related disability issues and reasonable accommodation. The first document (Guidance) employs a question and answer format and focuses primarily on typical questions employees may ask, although employers can also use it as a useful guide when dealing with the illegal use of opioids, the lawful use of prescribed opioids, employees who have a history of opioid use or abuse, and the accommodation responsibilities in each instance. The second document offers guidance to healthcare providers tasked with providing documentation for opioid-using patients seeking accommodations.

As more states are reopening and employees are returning to work, some employers will be considering testing employees for COVID-19 before allowing them to return to the workplace. In a prior post, we wrote about guidance from the EEOC that states that employers may test employees before returning to work as long as the testing complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). We also wrote about the various types of COVID-19 testing available, including serological testing and diagnostic testing. Serological testing looks for the presence of COVID-19 antibodies, while diagnostic testing checks for the presence of the COVID-19 virus itself.

As businesses prepare to re-open, many employers will be concerned about the risk of workplace transmission of the COVID-19 disease. Testing employees before allowing them to enter the workplace is one preventative measure employers are considering. However, this measure has been clouded by uncertainty, because a test for COVID-19 could be considered a medical inquiry under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which is only permitted if the inquiry is job-related and consistent with business necessity.

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, the issue of whether an employer may lawfully terminate an employee who has contracted COVID-19 has continued to arise. Terminating an employee because they have contracted COVID-19 carries significant legal risk. Some employers might consider the decision to terminate an employee a safety measure meant to protect employees and customers from coming into contact with someone who has had the illness. But doing so may run afoul of several federal statutes, including the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA), as well as the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has issued another ruling regarding an obesity-related disability accommodation request under the American with Disabilities Act (ADA). Earlier this past summer, we reported on another Seventh Circuit case, in which the court held that obesity is not an ADA-protected disability unless it is caused by a physiological disorder or condition. In Ronald Shell v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company, the Seventh Circuit reversed a district court's decision, and ruled that an obese applicant for a safety-sensitive position—who was not hired due to his obesity—cannot claim discrimination under the "regarded as" prong of the ADA.

If you do not like your boss, can you demand your employer provide you with a new one? A federal district court in Montana recently rejected such an accommodation request in a well-reasoned case involving the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and related state law. While the court did not rule out the requested accommodation as unreasonable as a matter of law, it did find the request was not appropriate under the facts of the case.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit will soon be deciding a case that may have important implications on the viability of class actions for employment discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). In Harris v. Union Pacific Railroad, the Eighth Circuit will look at whether a large class can be certified in ADA litigation notwithstanding certain individualized inquiries inherent to the ADA.

Regulators, judges and academics have all been vexed over the issue of whether obesity, not caused by an underlying physiological condition, is a disability covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Notwithstanding existing EEOC Enforcement Guidance that obesity is in and of itself protected under the ADA, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently weighed in on the issue and held obesity is not an ADA-protected disability unless it is caused by a physiological disorder or condition.

A recent decision issued by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court offers up a good reminder that what employers may consider FMLA abuse may not in fact be FMLA abuse under the law. That's exactly the scenario that played out in Richard A. DaPrato vs. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority.

It is often a challenge for employers to decide on who will deliver the bad news to an employee that their employment has ended. That decision may depend on who can connect with an employee and cause the least amount of personal and workplace turmoil.

In a failure to accommodate claim under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (“the MHRA”), a federal judge granted summary judgment for the employer, finding the employee’s after-the-fact explanation of his misconduct was not a valid request for accommodation under the MHRA.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently explained that an employee’s inconvenience from a neutral workplace policy or the employer’s discretionary denial of benefits cannot support a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (“Title VII”), or the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”).

A central tenet of the Americans with Disabilities Act is that an employee must be a qualified individual with a disability to receive its protections. A qualified individual with a disability must be able to perform the essential functions of the position with or without a reasonable accommodation. While an employer may modify the duties for an employee to accommodate medical restrictions, this does not mean the essential purpose of the original job must change. The Northern District of Illinois recently addressed this issue in a case involving a Chicago police officer. The officer had suffered several disabling strokes. For years, she worked in a light duty assignment taking police reports over the phone.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued a decision upholding a jury's guilty verdict against a large national retailer. Although a straightforward application of the Americans with Disabilities Act, this case a great example of how strict enforcement of company policy can run afoul of the Act’s prohibition against discrimination and an employer’s obligation to provide reasonable accommodations.

New Jersey is the latest state to offer clarity on an employer's obligations to accommodate its employees' medical marijuana use. In Cotto v. Ardagh Glass Packaging, New Jersey's Federal District Court held that neither the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ("NJLAD") nor the New Jersey Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act ("CUMMA") requires an employer to waive a drug test as a condition of employment for an employee who uses medical marijuana.

Working full-time hours is an essential function of a full-time job, right? Not necessarily, said the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in a Hostettler v. The College of Wooster. When the job can be done on a reduced schedule, at least in the short term, employers have a duty to accommodate.