Employment Law Observer

On April 15, 2024, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) published a Final Rule to implement regulations aimed at enforcing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA).

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.

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin recently addressed an employer's responsibilities to accommodate an employee's religious beliefs. In EEOC v. Walmart Stores East, LP, the court examined whether Walmart was required to accommodate a candidate for an assistant manager position who informed Walmart—after he received his offer—that he could not work on Saturdays due to his religion. Walmart ultimately withdrew the offer of employment, but offered the employee the opportunity to seek a non-management position as well as the assistance of human resources in his job search. The employee refused Walmart's offer and asserted claims of religious discrimination and retaliation under Title VII.

As Illinois employers get into the swing of 2019, do not forget Illinois has a new and additional posting requirement that came about as a result of amendments to the Illinois Human Rights Act in the Fall of 2018. That posting requirement obligates employers to post the notice found here with your other postings to employees and to include the substance of the content in your employee handbooks. It reminds employees of their right to be free from discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation, as well as their right to a reasonable accommodation for pregnancy and disabilities.

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.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently determined that an Illinois Sheriff’s Department did not violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by declining to provide a deputy his requested accommodation, an SUV, and instead transferring him to a position that did not require driving. The deputy had alleged the Department’s failed to accommodate him by refusing to provide him with an SUV, then retaliated against him by transferring him to a courthouse duty position.

A recent Southern District of California court decision provides California employers with additional guidance on what constitutes a reasonable accommodation.

Reminding employers of their obligation to accommodate pregnant employees in the same manner as non-pregnant employees, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently filed a sex discrimination lawsuit against a North Carolina nursing center. The complaint alleges the center violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (PDA) when it terminated two nursing assistants because of their pregnancy-related restrictions. In one case, the center placed the nursing assistant on unpaid leave when she asked the center to accommodate a pulling, lifting, and pushing restriction placed on her by her physician, then terminated her employment. The center terminated the second employee for similar reasons. The EEOC alleges the nursing center had the ability to accommodate such restrictions because they accommodated similar restrictions for non-pregnant employees who suffered work injuries.The EEOC is seeking declaratory and compensatory relief, as well as other monetary relief, for the terminated employees.

Last week the Seventh Circuit dealt a blow to the EEOC's continued position that medical leave is a reasonable accommodation when the leave is (1) of a definite, time-limited duration; (2) re-quested in advance; and (3) likely to enable the employee to perform the essential job functions upon return. The panel rejected that position, noting it glossed over the length of the requested leave, improperly transforming the ADA into "an open-ended extension of the FMLA."

In another effort to take aim at disparate treatment of women in the workforce, Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker signed into law the Massachusetts Pregnant Workers Fairness Act on July 27, 2017. The new law takes effect on April 1, 2018.

The Rhode Island Superior Court recently issued a decision in Callaghan v. Darlington Fabrics Corp. holding that defendant employer violated Rhode Island's Hawkins-Slater Medical Marijuana Act ("the Act") by refusing to hire a prospective employee who was a medical marijuana cardholder. The ruling is a first in Rhode Island, and a departure from other states' decisions, such as New Mexico and Colorado, that have found in favor of the employer.

On Monday, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ("SJC") issued a decision in Barbuto v. Advantage Sales and Marketing, holding that an employee may sue her employer for handicap discrimination based on her status as a medical marijuana patient.

Envision a situation where you are about to terminate an employee for violating a work conduct rule. Sensing what is coming, the employee explains to you her disability caused her to violate the rule.  Are you required to accommodate under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and forgo termination? The answer is no.

The converging paths of the Family Medical Leave Act's (FMLA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) ranks among the most difficult legal issues for employers to safely traverse. Employers should think twice before terminating an employee who cannot return to work after 12 weeks of FMLA leave. This is because courts across the country have held that additional leave may be a necessary reasonable accommodation under the ADA. The question then becomes, how much additional leave does one need to provide an employee before he or she is no longer protected by the ADA.