Federal Agency Obtains Policy Changes and $600,000 for Reservation Agents With Disabilities
SEATTLE — United Airlines has agreed to settle a federal lawsuit alleging that the company violated the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) when it refused to allow employees with disabilities to work reduced hourly schedules as a reasonable accommodation, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced today.
In addition to paying $600,000 to a group of reservation agents with disabilities, United will end its blanket policy against reduced hourly schedules and provide training to staffers who administer United’s reasonable accommodation process, according to the terms of a three-year consent decree approved by the court (EEOC v. United Airlines, C-06-01407 TSZ).
Prior to 2003, United had permitted reservations sales and service representatives to work reduced hourly schedules as an accommodation for employees’ various disabilities, including multiple sclerosis, DeQuervain’s tendonitis and carpal tunnel, and myasthenia gravis (a muscle condition). By suddenly abolishing its long-standing practice and policy of providing reduced hourly schedules, United required all reservation sales and service representatives who could not work their full bid schedules to either retire or go out on extended leave, and then terminated them when their leave ran out. These policies and practices violate the ADA, the EEOC said.
One worker who had worked for United for 25 years and had worked a reduced-hour schedule for 23 years prior to the policy change, said, “Contributing 25 years of work, in a way compatible with my health, was positive for me, for United and for society. A sweeping policy that disregards individual circumstances doesn’t give someone like me a chance to do my job. I took my case to the EEOC, and I'm glad to know that United is going to stop its blanket policy on work hours.”
The ADA protects individuals with disabilities from employment discrimination and requires employers to make reasonable accommodations to employees and applicants with disabilities, unless the accommodation would create an undue hardship. After a neutral investigation conducted by the EEOC’s Honolulu and Seattle offices and after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement through conciliation, the EEOC filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.
EEOC San Francisco Regional Attorney William R. Tamayo said, “United conceived of this policy as a cost-cutting measure -- a means of tightening the belt. However, this action did not lessen any monetary strain for the company or boost the department’s performance. Thinking creatively and flexibly to retain skilled and experienced workers would be a better survival strategy for companies than stereotyping workers with disabilities as expensive and expendable.”
EEOC San Francisco District Director Michael Baldonado noted, “Decisions regarding reasonable accommodations for a disability must be made on a case-by-case basis. A blanket policy that takes options off the table by setting minimum work hours not only violates the ADA, but it also may have a negative impact on the company’s morale, productivity and bottom line.”
According to www.united.com, United Airlines (NASDAQ: UAUA) is one of the largest international carriers based in the United States, with 52,000 employees worldwide and operating nearly 3,000 flights a day to more than 200 domestic and international destinations from its hubs in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Denver, Chicago and Washington, D.C.
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.
Cheryl Bates-Harris
NDRN
900 2nd Street NE, suite 211
Washington, DC 20002
202-408-9514 x 117
Fax 202-408-9520
Cheryl.Bates-Harris@ndrn.org
__._,_.___
Showing posts with label disability discrimination. Show all posts
Showing posts with label disability discrimination. Show all posts
Monday, January 3, 2011
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
New EEOC Lawsuits
FROM THE NRCA CAPITOL INSIDER-
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed two employment discrimination lawsuits under title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas in Houston. In the first lawsuit against ENGlobal Engineering, Inc., an energy engineering and professional services company, EEOC alleged the company fired an individual because it regarded him as having a disability. The employer insisted that the employee take a medical leave of absence when he began experiencing symptoms of multiple sclerosis even though he could still work. When the person returned to work with a doctor's clearance, ENGlobal falsely told him his position was no longer available. Three weeks later, the company hired someone else.
In the second employment discrimination lawsuit, EEOC alleged that DynMcDermott Petroleum Operations Company refused to hire someone who had previously worked for the company because his wife had cancer which the company felt would interfere with his ability to do his job. The company later hired someone with no experience for the position. Discrimination based on association with a person who has a disability is prohibited under title I of the ADA.
See EEOC's press release at:
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/8-26-10.cfm
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed two employment discrimination lawsuits under title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas in Houston. In the first lawsuit against ENGlobal Engineering, Inc., an energy engineering and professional services company, EEOC alleged the company fired an individual because it regarded him as having a disability. The employer insisted that the employee take a medical leave of absence when he began experiencing symptoms of multiple sclerosis even though he could still work. When the person returned to work with a doctor's clearance, ENGlobal falsely told him his position was no longer available. Three weeks later, the company hired someone else.
In the second employment discrimination lawsuit, EEOC alleged that DynMcDermott Petroleum Operations Company refused to hire someone who had previously worked for the company because his wife had cancer which the company felt would interfere with his ability to do his job. The company later hired someone with no experience for the position. Discrimination based on association with a person who has a disability is prohibited under title I of the ADA.
See EEOC's press release at:
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/8-26-10.cfm
Monday, June 15, 2009
June 22, 2009 Olmstead Anniversary
From Steve Gold, The Disability Odyssey Continues--
June 22, 2009 marks the 10th anniversary of the Supreme Court's Olmstead ruling for disability civil rights. Nearly ten years after the disability civil rights movement's victory in the Olmstead decision, incremental progress has occurred. Still, more than 313,000 people with disabilities in nursing homes (23% of the total) want to live in the community, and yet are denied their civil right to integration, primarily because of Medicaid's historical bias in favor of segregation.
How hard is it to understand and accept that, but for the denial of civil rights, many institutionalized people with disabilities would live in the community with adequate programs and supports, especially since its cheaper for the federal government and states to provide such programs and supports in the community?
How hard would it be to enact a Disability Civil Rights Act in 2009 to end unnecessary segregation just as Congress did with the Civil Rights Acts in the 1960s? Will U.S. Attorney General Holder look to how U.S. Attorney General Robert Kennedy addressed ending discrimination in the 1960s? General Holder could start by looking at the 313,000 people with disabilities living in nursing facilities who have said they do not want unnecessary institutionalized. He could inform states that Olmstead and the ADA/504 require providing real choice for people with disabilities who are segregated and want to live in the community.
Back issues of other Information Bulletins are available online at http://www.stevegoldada.com with a searchable Archive at this site divided into different subjects. To contact Steve Gold directly, write to stevegoldada@cs.com or call 215-627-7100.
June 22, 2009 marks the 10th anniversary of the Supreme Court's Olmstead ruling for disability civil rights. Nearly ten years after the disability civil rights movement's victory in the Olmstead decision, incremental progress has occurred. Still, more than 313,000 people with disabilities in nursing homes (23% of the total) want to live in the community, and yet are denied their civil right to integration, primarily because of Medicaid's historical bias in favor of segregation.
How hard is it to understand and accept that, but for the denial of civil rights, many institutionalized people with disabilities would live in the community with adequate programs and supports, especially since its cheaper for the federal government and states to provide such programs and supports in the community?
How hard would it be to enact a Disability Civil Rights Act in 2009 to end unnecessary segregation just as Congress did with the Civil Rights Acts in the 1960s? Will U.S. Attorney General Holder look to how U.S. Attorney General Robert Kennedy addressed ending discrimination in the 1960s? General Holder could start by looking at the 313,000 people with disabilities living in nursing facilities who have said they do not want unnecessary institutionalized. He could inform states that Olmstead and the ADA/504 require providing real choice for people with disabilities who are segregated and want to live in the community.
Back issues of other Information Bulletins are available online at http://www.stevegoldada.com with a searchable Archive at this site divided into different subjects. To contact Steve Gold directly, write to stevegoldada@cs.com or call 215-627-7100.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
