In addition to paying the money Maxim had to undergo discrimination training for employees and send a letter of condolences to the children of Anne Whitledge. I hope people remember this company and what they did. The company should be embarrassed treating an employee this way. It is illegal to treat an employee different because of a disability. This case is one of the more extreme examples of horrible treatment by a company. This type of employment discrimination will cost the company money and bad publicity every time.

“This was a heartbreaking case,” said EEOC Attorney John Hendrickson “Anne Whitledge battled cancer and lost the job she loved because of it."

Sallard alleged that during the orientation training, she could use a stool or small stepladder to more easily perform some of the tasks of preparing orders and serving customers. The manager at Starbucks disregarded Sallard’s request, and on the same day Starbucks terminated her employment, claiming that she would pose a “danger” to customers and employees. Talk about being cruel and not very understanding. The company is required by law to make a reasonable accommodation if it does not present a business problem.

“Starbucks swift action to work constructively with the EEOC in this case, not only by compensating the applicant who was turned away, but by committing to additional training for other stores in the El Paso area, sends the right signal from the corporate office,” said EEOC attorney Robert A. Canino

According to details in the lawsuit McMillan-Goodwin had successfully worked in that position with the lifting restriction for many years. The problem was Woodman’s placed McMillan-Goodwin on medical leave and then terminated her. This type of blatant activity will always result in the company paying money for discrimination. I am happy to report that the company will undergo training and the EEOC will make sure the company puts better policies in place in the future. This type of behavior also creates a hostile work environment for all employees because they can see the harmful treatment of a fellow employee.

“This case might never have arisen if Woodman’s had had clear policies and training to guide its management and human resources employees on the requirements of the ADA,” said EEOC Attorney John Hendrickson.

The lawsuit alleged Carole Schulman satisfactorily performed her job duties as a nursery school assistant teacher at JCCGW. Schulman was able to fulfill every aspect of her job safely, with no threat to anyone. Schulman was denied an accommodation, demoted to a lower-paying position as a mail room clerk and ultimately removed from the preschool altogether because of her hearing impairment. The settlement amount is a good indication that JCCGW realized it did her wrong.

“We are pleased that the company agreed to resolve the case by providing substantial monetary relief to Ms. Schulman – and agreeing to other terms that will help protect other employees from disability discrimination,” said EEOC Attorney Debra M. Lawrence.

EEOC Chair Jacqueline Berrien said “Flexibility on leave can enable a worker with a disability to remain employed and productive -- a win for the worker, the employer and the economy."

The lawsuit alleged that while Schott succeeded early on with the assistance of a job coach and task reminders, Target later failed to ensure the presence of a job coach during work-related and job performance meetings. By doing this Target insured Schott would fail and this violated the ADA. I am happy that the EEOC held Targets feet to the fire and hopefully after paying this amount they will change their business practices.

“People with disabilities can be productive employees when their needs are heard and met,” said EEOC attorney Anna Park

However, Armon was not given the position and instead no accommodation was made for her which violated the ADA which requires employers to reasonably accommodate employees with disabilities as long as this poses no undue hardship. As a result, the company had to pay money and now has a record of discrimination. This is such a waste, I will never understand why companies just don't do the right thing and follow the law. This type of activity also creates a hostile work environment for all employees because the other employees can see this type of discrimination and it sets a negative tone for the workplace.

“As the statute makes clear, failure to provide a reasonable accomodation for disabilities is in violation of federal law,” said EEOC attorney Laurie Young

Both men had been long time employees of the company as Gray worked for 15 years and Seifert had been there for 11 years. Both were very good workers and did not have any performance issues. I really can't believe a company would send around a questionnaire and then fire the employees based on their answers. I am glad the company had to pay money and I hope people realize what type of crazy behavior takes place out there.

“Many people, including Robert Gray and Wayne Seifert, have demonstrated their ability to perform their jobs just fine regardless of diabetes and hypertension,” said EEOC Attorney Debra M. Lawrence.

According to the ADA employers must make reasonably accommodations to employees with disabilities as long as this poses no undue hardship. The ADA has been around for a long time and you would think that companies have it figured out. People with disabilities have a hard enough time and don't need additional problems from employers.

“As the statute makes clear, failure to provide a reasonable accomodation for disabilities is in violation of federal law,” said EEOC attorney Laurie Young.

My chicago office is seeing a rise in all types of discrimination lawsuits not just ADA claims. It is very important that employees contact an employment attorney as soon as they believe they are the victim of discrimination. There are strict time limits involved and an experienced attorney can explain them to you the employee.

“Although we recently celebrated the 20-year anniversary of the ADA, some employers still make the serious mistake of basing job placement decisions on a person’s disabilities,” said EEOC Attorney Laurie Young.

This type of activity violates the Americans With Disabilities Act, which requires employers to attempt to make reasonable accommodations for employees’ disabilities as long as this poses no undue hardship. I am happy to see Sprince hang in there and not let the company push her around. After paying this settlement hopefully, the company will straighten itself out and not behave like this in the future. My chicago office is seeing more cases of employment discrimination and it is important that employees speak up and protect their rights.

“Leaves of absence are often appropriate accommodations and opportunities to fulfill the ADA’s requirements,” said EEOC attorney Markus L. Penzel

The problem with that logic is Timken employed men who were the fathers of disabled children. It is remarkable that a company would treat an employee this way. Timken failed to hire Halloran into the full-time position based on an unfounded gender stereotype that the mother of a disabled child would necessarily be the primary caregiver for the child and therefore would not be a reliable employee.

“Employers must be careful not to apply stereotypes against women based on perceptions that they must always be the primary caregivers and therefore are unreliable employees.” said EEOC attorney Lynette Barnes

In Illinois my office is seeing an increase in the number of ADA claims filed by employees. Of course I am seeing an increase in all types of employment discrimination lawsuits. It seems that employers are forgetting about how to properly treat employees and they are disregarding the law. There could also be a claim for retaliation if the employee is terminated for complaining about an ADA related issue.

EEOC atorney William R. Tamayo said, “This settlement should emphasize to employers that hiring and firing decisions must be based on facts -- whether or not an applicant or employee has the ability to do the job -- and not fears concerning disability.”

The problem was that John Muir assumed the eight workers had life-threatening latex allergies and could not safely work in a hospital setting. The workers did not take the news laying down and instead some of the workers were independently evaluated by board-certified allergists, who concluded that they did not have an allergy or sensitivity that would preclude them from working safely in hospital settings. And all of the non-hired workers continued to work in the health care profession.

“The Americans With Disabilities Act requires all employers to ensure that job candidates are not excluded based on a disability or perceived disability". said EEOC attorney Michael Baldonado

Like most companies the job offer required Teaford to pass a physical examination. As a result of the post-job offer examination, the company’s doctor learned that Teaford was receiving methadone as part of a clinically supervised chemical dependency treatment program--normally given to heroin addicts. The company then rescinded the job offer, mistakenly concluding that Teaford was a safety risk due to his methadone treatments. Teaford was qualified for the position, was not experiencing adverse side effects from the methadone treatments, and the treatment program provided the company’s doctor with information verifying Teaford’s successful and compliant participation in the program.

“Methadone treatment is one of the most monitored and regulated medical treatments in the United States,” said EEOC attorney Spencer H. Lewis, Jr. “This case should remind all employers that the ADA requires employers to make individualized assessments about an individual’s ability to do the job instead of acting out of speculative fears or biases.”