Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives

On August 16, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment to Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P. (Walmart), who was accused by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) of engaging in sex discrimination under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by offering temporary light duty to employees who were injured on the job, but denying a similar accommodation to pregnant employees. 

San Francisco has significantly expanded its Family Friendly Workplace Ordinance to guarantee flexible or predictable work arrangements for employees with qualifying caregiver responsibilities when the employee provides notice of their preferred arrangement, unless the employer can demonstrate an undue hardship to the employer.

On September 24, 2021, the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force (“Task Force”) issued written Guidance to implement Executive Order 14042 (“Ensuring Adequate COVID Safety Protocols for Federal Contractors”), which was signed by President Biden on September 9, 2021.  The Guidance is a key component of President Biden’s larger “Path Out of the Pandemic: COVID-19 Action Plan.”

On September 7, 2021, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) filed a first-of-its-kind lawsuit against an employer that allegedly denied accommodation for telework in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”). Currently, the case is the only lawsuit the EEOC has filed concerning a request for an ADA accommodation related to COVID-19. The suit is a challenge to the typical posture of courts that frequently consider working from home to be an unreasonable accommodation.

The Department of Justice’s (“DOJ’s”) often criticized rulemaking delays have resulted in no new website accessibility rules for places of public accommodation to receive notice of and implement. Notwithstanding the obvious due process concerns raised by these delays, more and more website accessibility cases are being threatened and filed every day. Most, not unexpectedly, settle. Winn-Dixie did not, and what happened next is worth a closer look.

In a previous post, we discussed the Second Circuit’s opinion finding that Rite-Aid lawfully fired a long-tenured pharmacist after he refused to comply with the company’s new mandate that pharmacists administer immunizations.  The plaintiff requested that the Second Circuit rehear the case, arguing that it should consider additional evidence.  Without discussion, the Second Circuit denied the plaintiff’s request, upholding its prior decision.  The pharmacist was not protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act because he could not perform an essential function ...

The Second Circuit recently held that Rite-Aid lawfully fired a long-tenured pharmacist after he refused to comply with the company’s new mandate that pharmacists administer immunizations.  The Court’s decision overturned a jury verdict of $2.6 million in the pharmacist’s favor and reminds employers what it takes to show that a given function is “essential” and what accommodations are reasonable.  The former pharmacist had claimed Rite-Aid illegally discharged and retaliated against him, and refused to accommodate his disability—trypanophobia, or needle phobia—under the Americans with Disabilities Act and similar state law.

This week, the EEOC announced that an Illinois-based packing company, Pactiv LLC, agreed to pay $1.7 million to resolve a charge alleging that the company discriminated against employees who needed time off from work for medical reasons.

According to the EEOC, the company maintained a nationwide policy that assessed “attendance points” to employees who needed time off for medical reasons. The company also allegedly failed to provide employees with intermittent and extended leave as a “reasonable accommodation” under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Supreme Court recently held in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. that Title VII prohibits a prospective employer from refusing to hire an applicant in order to avoid accommodating a religious practice that it could accommodate without undue hardship, even where the applicant has not informed the employer of his need for an accommodation.

Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia have enacted laws which decriminalize the use of marijuana for medical purposes.  Under those statutory schemes, individuals with qualified medical conditions may become registered cardholders and obtain cannabis for medical purposes, often from state-regulated dispensaries.  These developments present an array of new challenges for employers to navigate.

In Enforcement Guidance issued last week, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission took the position that employers should accommodate the physical restrictions of women with normal, uncomplicated pregnancies as if those women had protected disabilities.

On April 22, 2014, the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of an ADA case against Ford Motor Company, finding that there was a fact issue as to whether telecommuting most days is a reasonable accommodation. In EEOC v. Ford Motor Company (No. 12-2484), the court addressed an increasingly common, yet persistently difficult, question:  when must employees be allowed to work remotely, and when is physical, in-person attendance an essential function of a job?

On March 6, 2014, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) released guidance pertaining to employers’ responsibilities to accommodate religious dress and grooming in the workplace.  

The guidance provides explanation and analysis concerning an employer’s responsibilities under Title VII to “make exceptions to their usual rules or preferences to permit applicants and employees to follow religiously-mandated dress and grooming practices unless it would pose an undue hardship to the operation of an employer’s business.”

In a 2-1 decision, the Tenth Circuit reversed summary judgment in favor of the EEOC on its claim that Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. failed to provide an applicant with a reasonable religious accommodation and remanded the case for entry of judgment in favor of Abercrombie.

On October 2, 2013, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg signed into law an amendment to the city’s Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”), expanding the scope of the pregnancy discrimination protections provided under the law.  Although discrimination on the basis of an employee’s pregnancy has long been prohibited under the NYCHRL, as well as under state and federal law, the new amendment makes it unlawful for an employer to refuse to reasonably accommodate “the needs of an employee for her pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.” 

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities. Once an employer becomes aware of an employee’s disability, the ADA requires the employer to provide a “reasonable accommodation” to enable the employee to perform the essential functions of his or her job.  While the type of reasonable accommodation required can vary greatly depending on an employee’s disability and essential job functions, it was not until recently that a court found that permitting an employee to work in natural light can be a reasonable accommodation.

On February 28, 2012, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) issued additional guidance to wounded veterans and to employers under the ADA Amendments Act of 2008.  The two publications are revised versions of guides that originally were posted by the EEOC in February 2008. This guidance reflects another move by federal agencies to address the employment of disabled persons.  Last December, we reported that the OFCCP issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would, among other things, establish a national utilization goal for individuals with disabilities. There is certainly more than one indication from the federal government that employers will likely continue to face heightened responsibilities concerning the employment of disabled individuals.

Thirty-four percent of adults in the United States presently qualify as obese under standards adopted by the Center for Disease Control.  Morbid obesity (defined as having a body weight more than 100% over the norm) and obesity caused by a psychological disorder are "disabilities" as defined by the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”), according to the EEOC.  Lawsuits involving morbid obesity are on the rise and come in many shapes and sizes.  The most common involves a “substantially limiting” health condition such as diabetes, heart disease, and hypertension.  Others involve employers who assume an obese employee would pose a direct threat to the health and safety of him or herself or other employees if he or she were to carry out the essential functions of the job.

Bending over backwards to help an employee with a disability can leave the employer in an awkward position.  With changes to the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and its regulations last year, employers may be more likely to offer accommodations.  More conditions will be deemed to fall within the definition of a disability, and employers likely will err on the side of providing accommodations.  However, employers should continue to exercise sound judgment in deciding what accommodations to offer.