HR Forum: ada

Showing posts with label ada. Show all posts

EEOC may extend recordkeeping requirements to GINA-covered entities

Today's post comes from G.Neil's HR News Weekly:

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is recommending an extension of the recordkeeping requirements under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to employers and entities covered by Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA).

To clarify all those acronyms and numbers, what this means is this: The EEOC would like to update the current Title VII and ADA recordkeeping regulations to add references to GINA. According to the EEOC, the proposal wouldn't create additional documents or impose any new reporting requirements. Rather, it would extend the same record retention requirements under GINA that are imposed under Title VII and the ADA.

(As a reminder, Title II of GINA prohibits the use of genetic information to make employment decisions, while also restricting the acquisition or disclosure of genetic information by employers and other GINA-covered entities.)

The EEOC is accepting comments on the proposed rule until August 1, 2011. Check back here for updates.

At long last, the final ADAAA regulations are here

Although the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008 (“ADAAA”) went into effect January 1, 2009, the EEOC just recently released the long-awaited final regulations. The new regulations, which are effective May 24, 2011, reflect the more than 600 public comments the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) received from a wide range of stakeholders.

What stays the same: The basic legal requirement that employers not discriminate against individuals with disabilities who are qualified for a job, with or without reasonable accommodations. The final regulations maintain the ADA’s definition of “disability” as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities; a record (or past history) of such an impairment; or being regarded as having a disability.

What changes: How these terms are interpreted – with many more conditions falling under the definition of “disability.” For example, impairment doesn’t necessarily have to prevent or restrict performance of a major life activity to be considered substantially limiting. In addition, episodic impairments, such as epilepsy, are considered disabilities if they limit activity.

“Under the new law, the focus is on how the person was treated rather than on what an employer believes about the nature of the person’s impairment,” the EEOC stated at the time the regulations were announced.

As with the existing ADA rules, you should err on the side of caution. It’s best to assume that most employees with physical or mental impairments are covered under the ADA … and make every effort to cooperate with impacted employees. For guidance on the many nuances of the new ADA rules, check out the handy guide available on the ADA website.

Changing a job's "essential functions" - ADA loophole or sinkhole?

Ask Woodman’s Food Markets this question and you’ll probably get a resounding “sinkhole.” The Janesville, Wisconsin-based grocery store chain is being sued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for firing a disabled employee who was restricted from lifting more than 10 pounds.

The snag is this: Kimberly McMillan-Goodwin successfully performed the job for years with the lifting restriction. But when she returned from an absence due to injuries in a car accident, she was placed on a one-year leave and then terminated. The company’s explanation? It changed the position, making McMillan-Goodwin no longer able to perform her job with the long-standing restriction. Plus, the company claimed it had no other positions to offer her.

While we don’t know the outcome of the lawsuit yet, the case deserves our attention because it pertains to whether an employer can change the essential functions of a job under the ADA and in turn, fire a disabled individual who was previously qualified. There is a fear that for particularly crafty employers, this could serve as a legal loophole, allowing them to sidestep the accommodation duty under the ADAAA’s expanded definition of “disabled.” Simply change the job description to shut out disabled candidates or existing employees who no longer meet the job’s requirements.

The EEOC’s position in the”changed jobs” case is more clear-cut. “It is unfortunate that some managers still act as if it’s acceptable to deny jobs to people who are ready and able to work, simply because of a disability – especially when the people they put on the street have a history of
long, loyal successful performance,” says John Hendrickson, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Chicago District. “It really runs against most people’s sense of fundamental fairness and, beyond that, it violates federal law.” (eeoc.gov)

October is National Disability Employment Awareness Month. In its support for disabled employees, the DOL’s Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP) is promoting the message:

“Talent has no boundaries – Workplace diversity includes people with disabilities.”

Are you doing your part to open doors when hiring and promoting workers with disabilities? Just as important, are your workplace policies in sync with last year’s amendments to the ADA, including making reasonable accommodations for qualified individuals?

When work stinks ... literally

To you, it’s a lovely little air freshener that smells like spring rain. To your colleague down the hall, it’s a reeking time bomb that makes her feel lousy every time she catches a whiff of it.

According to WebMD, more than 2 million Americans suffer from fragrance allergies or sensitivities. For them, the products that make us nicer to be around in crowded elevators, such as colognes, perfumes, moisturizers, soaps, deodorant and aftershave, can be downright sickening. If they use fragranced products, they may develop a rash with redness, itching or blistering. And if they’re near someone who uses these products, whether on their body or in their environment (in the case of air fresheners), they may experience any number of symptoms – from sneezing, a runny nose and watery eyes, to headaches, difficulty concentrating and dizziness.

Needless to say, not a good scenario for getting your work done. Which is why more and more workplaces are encouraging their employees to be considerate of their fragrance-sensitive coworkers – and keep the aromatic body and room “fresheners” to a minimum.

For city workers in Detroit, MI, they’re more than “encouraged” not to wear fragranced products. It’s more like warned, thanks to a federal lawsuit filed in 2008 by a city employee who claimed a colleague’s perfume made it challenging for her to do her job. (msnbc.com)

Warnings now appear in the employee handbook, in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) training and via postings that appear throughout city buildings.

In the case of my own company, the issue wasn’t as urgent, but one that needed to be addressed, nonetheless. Our Human Resources Manager sent a company-wide e-mail explaining fragrance sensitivity and asking everyone to be aware of it and take steps to “keep the air as breathable as possible at work.”

So what about your workplace? Have you had to address this issue and if so, how did you do it? For the extremely sensitive employee who lets you know about a fragrance allergy, could you be looking at a “reasonable accommodation” under the expanded ADA?

How healthy is your medical leave policy? It may be time for a checkup

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has filed a class-action lawsuit against UPS for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) when it terminated an employee with multiple sclerosis. According to the lawsuit, this particular employee (as well as a whole class of disabled UPS employees) was unfairly treated under the company’s 12-month leave policy.

Some details regarding the case: The employee took a leave of absence from her job when she started experiencing symptoms that were later diagnosed as multiple sclerosis. She came back to work for a few weeks after the 12-month leave period, but then needed additional time off to deal with the negative side effects of her medication. It was at this point that UPS fired her for exceeding its 12-month leave policy.

From an EEOC press release:

“One of the main goals of the ADA is to provide gainful employment to qualified
individuals with disabilities. However, policies like this one at UPS, which set
arbitrary deadlines for returning to work after medical treatment, unfairly keep
disabled employees from working. Sometimes a simple conversation with the
employee about what might be needed to return to work is all that is necessary
to keep valued employees in their jobs.”

UPS is defending its 12-month leave policy, calling it “one of the more generous and flexible leave policies in corporate America.” The company claims the employee never asked for an accommodation under the ADA – and that after returning from a year’s leave of paid absence, she basically “abandoned” her position 18 days later, without providing any medical documentation justifying additional time off.

What about your company’s leave of absence policy? Could it pass this sort of ADA scrutiny? Are you prepared to handle and properly administer requests for reasonable accommodations? A quick checkup of your leave policy and ADA administration practices may be in order to ensure they are healthy, stable and could stand up in court.

Thanks to ADA, NBA may employ oldest player in history

Alan Rupe is a 59-year-old, 5-foot-ten attorney, who claims he can have his dream job as a professional NBA player and you can too, thanks to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

His strategy – leverage some recent court decisions “guaranteeing” equal employment rights under the ADA in his favor. All he needs to do is find a mental or physical disability protected under the ADA.

His plan – find an ADA protected mental or physical disability. After proving that he suffers from a covered disability, the NBA will essentially be forced to accommodate his limitations.

Sound crazy? Maybe crazy like a fox…

Take a look at the recent appeals decision of Tobin v. Liberty Mutual. Plaintiff Tobin claimed his bipolar disorder caused a lack of focus and concentration. He couldn’t complete work on time, prioritizing was difficult and stress worsened his symptoms.

After 11 months of Liberty working with Tobin to accommodate his disability, he was fired for “consistent poor performance” that the company said lasted for years. Long story short – Tobin sued. Tobin won more than $1 million.

In another case, Titus v. Home Depot, a store manager suffered an injury on the job that caused permanent damage. The manager requested Home Depot make “reasonable accommodations” for him that included a promotion. The company declined, the manager sued and won.

Under the ADA, employers must “provide reasonable accommodation to qualified individuals with disabilities who are employees or applicants for employment, unless to do so would cause undue hardship.” (EEOC)

“Unless an employer can prove it would suffer “undue hardship” in the operation of the business, the employer is required to provide the requested accommodation,” says Rupe.

As it turns out, the older Rupe gets, the better chance he has at joining the NBA. Like I said, crazy like a fox.

New amendments to the ADA effective January 1, 2009, expanded the definition of disability. And as some experts predicted, reasonable accommodation requests have become more frequent and complicated.

Be prepared to handle and know how to document reasonable accommodation requests with tools like the ComplyRight ADA Administration System. With this supply of ADA forms, information and tip sheets, you’ll be ready to manage employee requests.

With Rupe on the way, maybe the NBA should look into it, too.

DOL celebrates ADA anniversary with new disability site

Marking the 19th anniversary of the signing of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) the Department of Labor (DOL) yesterday announced the re-name and re-launch of its disability-related informational website, Disability.gov.

The improved site, managed by the DOL, is designed to better inform and serve the more than 50 million Americans with disabilities, along with their families and friends, veterans, employers, educators, caregivers and anyone interested in disability-related information.

"The Department of Labor is pleased to be the managing partner of Disability.gov and to help advance the independence and full participation of people with disabilities in the workforce, the classroom and their communities," said Kathleen Martinez, assistant secretary for the Labor Department's Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP).

Disability.gov has pulled together content from 22 federal agencies and utilizes social media tools that enable user interaction. Visitors can sign up for personalized news and updates, participate in online discussions and suggest new resources for the site.

The DOL has also set up a Twitter feed, RSS feeds, a blog, social bookmarking and a user-friendly way to access information on such topics as employment and job accommodation. The Department has plans to add more tools in the coming months.

"Far more than just a directory of federal resources, Disability.gov is a meeting ground for Americans to learn, respond and communicate about a wealth of critically important disability-related topics," said Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis. "The new site has been vastly enhanced to provide more information in as efficient and interactive setting as possible."

Read the DOL press release and visit Disability.gov for more information.

Are you prepared to handle flu-related HR issues?

As the World Health Organization (WHO) raises the alert level of the H1N1 flu virus (aka. swine flu), employers’ concern over how an outbreak could affect their businesses has seemingly tapered off.

The WHO officially declared the H1N1 flu virus a pandemic on Thursday by raising the threat level of the virus to Phase 6. The pandemic status of the virus doesn’t mean that it is more dangerous, but that it has infected people in more countries. The Phase 6 threat level means community-level outbreaks have hit more than one continent.

News coverage surrounding swine flu has calmed down and so seems employers’ concern regarding any danger the illness may pose to their organizations. Approximately two in five employers (41%) do not have a human resources policy in place for health-related emergencies, although they have employees working in areas with confirmed swine flu (or Influenza A) cases, according to a survey by Mercer.

“With the continued increase of reported cases of Influenza A [swine flu], it is important for employers to develop a plan for dealing with the myriad HR issues that can arise in the event of a pandemic or other health care emergency,” said Danielle Dorling, a consultant in Mercer’s HR effectiveness consulting business. “In particular, organizations with a global workforce and decentralized HR units need to have a coherent procedure in place for employee care in the event of a health emergency.” (Mercer press release)

Among the key survey findings:

53% of the employers surveyed were considering whether to create back-up and contingency plans in response to the outbreak
43% said they planned to restrict or cancel business travel
41% said they planned to allow employees to work at home
27% opted for voluntary quarantine for employees exposed to risk
24% enforced quarantine on employees judged at risk
24% indicated they were taking no special actions.

Employers also said they would cancel meetings, screen staff members returning from travel, require medical check-ups and review health or insurance plans as a result of the recent swine flu outbreak.

“Business continuity plans should be standardized and employers must be able to communicate in a streamlined, swift and decisive fashion,” Dorling said. “Ad-hoc reaction can lead to confusion, unnecessary panic and expensive global inconsistencies that can expose the organization to significant financial risk.”

In April, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano asked private employers to do their part in helping the federal government protect workers from the illness, saying that employers should be thinking ahead about what they would do if affected by swine flu or other contagious diseases.

Before you create policies and procedures regarding the spread of viral infections in your workplace, there are a few legal and ethical issues to consider. Employers should know the rights of exposed employees, if they can order employees to go home and how the Americans with Disabilities Act could come into play, among a list of other important questions.

G.Neil’s free “Flu in the Workplace” white paper explains the answers to those questions along with information on how to protect your employees and business from serious contagious diseases.

Free white paper: Flu in the Workplace

The swine flu is dominating news outlets across the country, as new cases are reported daily. Schools and workplaces are typically considered high risk locations for the spread of viral infections. As an employer, what are your rights and responsibilities when it comes to protecting your workforce from contagious diseases?

The risk of illness spreading in the workplace is nothing new, but you still want to limit the risk to your staff and customers. G.Neil’s new “Flu in the Workplace” white paper explains important legal and ethical issues to consider before you create a policy, including:

The rights of exposed employees
Can an employer order a sick employee to go home?
Application of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Discrimination based on ethnicity
Safety obligations and liability for employee exposure
Establishing a safe workplace policy

Download our free white paper and learn how to protect your employees and business from the spread of flu and other contagious diseases.

New EEOC best practices against caregiver discrimination

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently released an online guide covering employer best practices for workers with caregiving responsibilities.

Along with advice on avoiding discrimination against caregivers the document also provides examples of best practices employers can adopt that go beyond federal non-discrimination requirements to reduce the chance of EEO violations.

This most recent guide supplements a 2007 document on unlawful disparate treatment of employees with caregiving responsibilities. The new EEOC guide outlines added suggestions for employers including suggested language for a written EEO policy addressing caregiver protection and best practices in recruitment, hiring, promotion and conditions and terms of employment.

Among the best practices explained in the new document, the EEOC encourages employers to:

Train managers and supervisors on their legal responsibilities regarding employees with caregiving responsibilities under federal regulations including the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Equal Pay Act, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).
Develop, distribute and enforce a strong EEO policy that clearly explains examples of discriminatory behavior against caregivers.
Respond to caregiver discrimination complaints efficiently and effectively.
Identify and remove barriers to re-entry for individuals who have taken leaves of absence due to caregiving responsibilities or other personal reasons.
Encourage employees to request flexible work arrangements that allow them to balance work and personal responsibilities.
Monitor compensation practices and performance appraisal systems for patterns of potential discrimination against caregivers.

Employee training is your first line of defense to prevent employment discrimination and minimize legal action. Protect your company from lawsuits by educating your employees on their responsibilities when it comes to discrimination and harassment in the workplace.

Without the proper training, employees may be engaging in or condoning unacceptable behavior without even knowing it. The Harassment-Free Workplace -- Take Control is a comprehensive training program that teaches workers how to take responsibility for their own actions. Prevent harassment and protect your business with more tools from G.Neil.

ADA questions arise after new hire is found having conversations with herself

What do you do when an otherwise perfect new employee starts acting a little “off” after only a few months on the job?

Here’s the situation: A good friend, we’ll call her “Jane,” was hiring for an entry-level sales position about a year ago. She interviewed a candidate who was friendly, articulate, had a steady work history and seemed to be perfect for the job.

After a few weeks of training, employees in her training class and the instructor expressed some concern that the individual was slightly “off.” No one could pinpoint exactly what was wrong, so she remained in training and on course for employment.

About six months later, HR began receiving complaints about the new employee’s strange behavior. Among the various complaints, she had been seen talking to herself in the hallways and break room. Other complaints explained how she was spending an excessive amount of time in the bathroom, having hour-long conversations with herself in the mirror.

Jane contacted Employee Health and the employee was removed from the workplace after going through a complete mental health evaluation.

Though the situation was rather strange and unfortunate, it also brought up some legitimate legal concerns, specifically regarding the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA):

What are the ADA consequences if you hired someone and then discovered this behavior on day two? Can you dismiss them?
Do ADA accommodation requirements come into play? Is there a time frame? Or is it from the moment of hire? What about before the hire?
If she was otherwise best qualified, can you refuse to hire solely based upon her mental illness?

We ran Jane’s situation and our ADA accommodation questions by the G.Neil legal team to get a better understanding. Generally speaking, here’s what employers should know:

The ADA makes it unlawful to discriminate in employment against a qualified individual with a disability. To be protected from employment discrimination under the ADA, the employee must be disabled (as defined by the ADA) and qualified to perform the essential functions of the job, with or without reasonable accommodation. Disabilities recognized by the ADA may be mental or physical.

Qualified means two things - first the employee must satisfy your requirements for the job, such as education, employment experience, skills or licenses. Second, the applicant or employee must be able to perform the essential functions of the job with or without reasonable accommodation.

If the disabled employee is considered disabled as defined by the ADA and can perform the essential functions of the job with/without a reasonable accommodation, the employee is protected under the ADA and cannot be terminated or not hired solely because of his/her disability.

Reasonable accommodations can include nearly anything, depending on the individual's disability. Examples of common accommodations include:

Making existing facilities readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities
Job restructuring or reassignment to a vacant position
Acquiring or modifying equipment or devices
Adjusting or modifying examinations, training or policies
Providing qualified readers or interpreters
Modified work schedules or leaves of absence

Employers are not required to provide an accommodation that would cause the business an "undue hardship." Undue hardships usually occur when an accommodation would cost too much (based on the company's resources) or would substantially interfere with business operations. This is a legal determination that must be made on a case-by-case basis by the company human resources department and/or legal counsel.

An individual with a disability may request a reasonable accommodation at any time during the application process or during the period of employment. The individual does not have to mention the ADA or use any "trigger" words like "reasonable accommodation" to begin the process. Instead, he or she only has to give you enough information to alert you to the fact that he or she needs an adjustment because of a medical condition.

Requests do not need to be in writing or take any particular form; however, you should have individuals make the request in writing so that the information is documented for future use.

Generally, it is the disabled individual's responsibility to alert you to the need for any accommodation. You are not required to accommodate any disability you do not know about. However, you may initiate the accommodation process if you have noticed a change in the ability of a person with a known disability to perform the job.

The definition of disability was expanded under the new Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act (ADAAA). G.Neil’s updated ADA Facts Sheet is a simple resource to help explain the most recent ADA changes, the process for requesting accommodation, what qualifies as reasonable and more. The ADAAA went into effect on January 1, 2009, read more on how the changes affect your business.

What would you have done in Jane’s situation? Are there any other legal issues that would affect your decision?

Can an employer fire an employee for being too buff?

During a recent conversation with a friend in the HR industry, an interesting story came up about a situation at a past employer. To keep it simple, we’ll call our friendly HR-pro “Jane.” (Note: Names, dates and company information have all been omitted to protect the innocent.)

Years ago, Jane was recruiting physicians for the medical clinic she worked at when she thought she came across the perfect doctor to fill an open position. The applicant filled all the necessary qualifications, was well-educated, well-spoken, energetic and self-motivated. Jane offered the job to the doctor the day after the interview. He accepted and was hired.

After about a week on the job, Jane unexpectedly found the doctor showing off to some of the medical assistants in the employee lounge. The doctor, dressed in scrub pants and an undershirt, was having the medical assistants count off how many one-handed push ups he could complete in one minute. After the push-up routine, he proudly took off his shirt and asked for volunteers to hang on his biceps as part of another strength test.

Jane fired Dr. Muscle a week later and some of the female assistants seemed to be rather upset. However, Jane thought the office was better off without someone revealing their muscles and working out when they should be focused on their job.

While Jane may think she did her office a favor by getting rid of Dr. Muscle, could she have potentially put her clinic in serious legal trouble for the firing? A list of questions ran through my brain:

Can an employer fire an employee for being too buff? Could that warrant a sexual discrimination claim? Behavior is one thing, but what about just looking too hot and that being a distraction to the other employees? Is there a discrimination lawsuit in there? Is it the same for a good looking man or a good looking woman?

According the G.Neil legal team, unless you are a government employer or operate under a contract, your company is most likely an at-will employer. At-will simply means the employment relationship may be terminated at any time for any reason by either the employer or the employee. The only “catch” is that the “any reason” really means any reason except for an illegal one. In other words, you can terminate an employee because of absenteeism, poor work performance or simply because he/she isn’t a good fit for your company. However, you cannot fire someone for being Asian, a female, too old, etc. Firing someone because of race, color, national origin, religion, age, gender, disability or other legally protected characteristic is prohibited by law and may result in a claim of wrongful discharge.

Although there is no law that prohibits discrimination based on personal appearance, appearance-based litigation arises under several discrimination laws. These days employees and former employees are bringing lawsuits, which are in essence appearance-based discrimination claims, alleging violations of the ADA, ADEA, Title VII, and state fair employment statutes. By tying an unprotected physical characteristic to race, sex, national origin, religion, or disability, plaintiffs are able to get their appearance-based complaints in front of a judge or jury.

Can a particular employee be asked/required to cover up more than other employees because of appearance (good or bad)? Possible situations … large breasts, ugly scars, big muscles, deformities, etc. Is there a level of distraction that could justify such a request as part of a legitimate business need on the part of the employer?

Employers generally have the right to establish dress code and appearance standards for appropriate business reasons. Common business reasons include sustaining a positive public image, promoting productivity, and complying with health and safety standards. Legal claims can arise when an employer enforces dress code or appearance standards that are not business-related or applied uniformly, or when the standards affect one group of individuals more than another, in violation of federal or state anti-discrimination laws.

In some cases, a company might be required to make an exception to its established dress code or appearance standards for legal reasons. For example, employers are required to reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs and employees generally should be permitted to wear head coverings, religious insignia and other tokens of faith. Religious accommodations are not required, however, if they present a safety risk, public health concern, or other undue hardship on the employer. For example, employees may be prohibited from wearing long hair or flowing garments near machinery, or they may be required to wear hats or ponytails in a food service establishment.

We know that firing an employee is never an easy thing to do, but knowing how to handle each stage of the process can make it go much smoother. The ComplyRight How to Fire Anyone: Your Guide to Fair and Legal Terminations will give you a clear explanation of the legal do’s and don’ts when it comes to firing employees.

Can an employer fire an employee for being too buff? Leave a comment and let us know what you think.

The ADA Amendments Act, Part 2: How employers should prepare

In our last post, we examined the major changes the Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act will have on the original law when it becomes effective on January 1, 2009.

The new amendments make major changes to the original ADA, including what is considered a major life activity and the definition of disability. Employers must be aware of the changes and the effect they will have on their businesses. From the Word on Employment Law with John Phillips:

All we know now is that the realm of “the disabled” is about to be significantly enlarged. While it may be incorrect to say the new Act makes everyone disabled, we’ll be much closer to that point than we’ve ever been. Reasonable accommodation requests will become more frequent and more complicated. Disability discrimination charges and litigation will increase dramatically. Given the new Act’s language, it’ll be difficult for courts to dismiss these cases without letting a jury decide them.

In many respects, we’re starting all over with disability discrimination. If the Supreme Court has, in the past, given employers an advantage in these cases, the advantage is about to be given to employees.

If you haven’t started already, employers should be preparing for how the changes to the ADA will effect employment processes, accommodating employees with disabilities and compliance requirements.

In a recent Workforce article, author Tina M. Maiolo explained the next steps employers should take to prepare for the upcoming ADA changes. Here are her seven steps to compliance with the ADA Amendments Act:

Assume every employee is healthy. Presume nothing, especially whether the employee has any type of impairment.

Assume all employee impairments fall under the ADA. When an employee claims to have an impairment, always assume that it is qualified as a disability under the ADA Amendments Act. Employers are “safer to assume from the outset that an impairment qualifies as a disability than trying to argue later that it does not.”

Accommodate employee impairments. After a claim is made, be sure to make all reasonable attempts to accommodate the employee’s impairment. Unless the accommodation creates “undue hardship,” by being so burdensome or expensive that it changes the nature of the business, employers must be accommodating.

Review and edit job descriptions. “An employer’s defense against an ADA Amendments Act claim is likely to rest on whether the disabled employee was "qualified" to perform the essential functions of his or her job.” Write an accurate and detailed job description from the beginning that clearly defines essential job functions.

Begin ADA Amendments Act training. “HR should treat the ADA Amendments Act as an entirely new law.” Everyone involved in the hiring process, including HR and managers should go through training to understand the changes.

Throw away, modify or create disability policies. Either start from scratch writing new disability policies, or modify your existing policies to reflect the latest ADA changes. It would be best to have these done before the law goes into effect on the first of the year.

Make modifications as the courts interpret the new amendments. “The impact of the ADA Amendments Act will not be static,” they will continue to evolve over time. Stay on top of the latest changes and your business will be better protected.

Understanding the changes to the ADA is the first step to compliance. Once the law goes into effect on January 1, 2009, it is up to employers to choose to follow what is required of them under the law.

If you’re looking for help managing employee accommodation requests, the ComplyRight ADA Administration System contains all the forms and information employers need to comply. Complete with forms, tip sheets and valuable best practice information, the system can help you manage any request.

ADA Amendments Act, Part 1: What changed?

In September, President Bush signed the Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act as an effort to restore protection for disabled individuals that were created in the original 1990 bill. The new ADA Amendments will go into effect on January 1, 2009 and every employer and HR professional must be prepared to stay in compliance with the new regulations.

The new ADA changes allow more protections for disabled individuals by reversing Supreme Court decisions that once narrowed the definition of disability and what is a major life activity. It also forms broader parameters to how the law may be interpreted by the courts in the future.

One of the biggest questions the amendments answer is in regards to: What is a major life activity? As written, the new ADA states that it shouldn’t be interpreted strictly and whether someone is disabled “should not demand extensive analysis.” According to The Word on Employment Law with John Phillips, Phillips explains:

The Act includes a nonexhaustive list of activities that constitute major life activities, including caring for oneself; bending; performing manual tasks; speaking; seeing; breathing; hearing; learning; eating; reading; sleeping; concentrating; walking; thinking; standing; lifting; communicating; and working. Are you beginning to get the picture? If an employee can’t perform one of these activities, he/she is automatically disabled. Wow!

We’re just beginning, however. The Act also includes a subset of major life activities called “major bodily functions,” including functions of the immune system, normal cell growth, and digestive, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, endocrine, and reproductive functions. There is no requirement that the functions have any relation to the ability to perform a job. Indeed, some are completely unrelated to work. If these functions are substantially impaired, however, you have a disability.

In another big change, the Act reverses Supreme Court rulings that denied disability status to people with conditions in remission or improved by medicine or medical treatment. The new amendments state that such a condition is still considered a disability if it limits a major life activity when that person is active. According to Phillips:

A disability is to be determined without regard to the ameliorative effects of mitigating measures such as “medication, medical supplies, equipment, or appliances, low-vision devices . . . prosthetics including limbs and devices, hearing aids and cochlear implants or other implantable hearing devices, mobility devices, or oxygen therapy equipment and supplies; use of assistive technology; auxiliary aids or services; or learned behavioral or adaptive neurological modifications.” The only exceptions are eyeglasses and contact lenses.

Additionally, the amendments make the process of claiming a disability less involved. To prove that an employee was disabled under the original ADA, one had to prove they were regarded as having a physical or mental impairment and that the impairment considerably limited a major life activity. “Pandora’s box will be opened,” by the new act, in that an employee may be considered disabled “whether or not the impairment limits or is perceived to limit a major life activity.”

The definition of disability has been significantly altered by the new ADA Amendments Act, employers must be educated on how to fully comply with the latest changes. In our next post, we’ll explain how employers should prepare for the new ADA changes before it becomes effective on the first of the year.

For help managing ADA accommodation requests under the new amendments, take a look at the ComplyRight ADA Administration System. It contains all the necessary forms, tools and information to effectively manage employee requests for reasonable accommodation.

Retail giant sued for disability discrimination

Dillard’s, the nationwide department store chain, is facing a class action lawsuit for unlawfully requiring employees to disclose confidential medical information in order to qualify for excused sick leave or face disciplinary action including termination.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed charges under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) against Dillard’s claiming their corporate policy is an unlawful disability-related inquiry under the ADA and not a justified business necessity.

In the lawsuit, the EEOC cites one instance where a sales associate was unable to attend work for a few days because of her medical illness. After submitting a doctor’s note justifying sick leave, Dillard’s asked her to reveal the specific nature of her illness for the absence to be deemed excused under company policy.

The sales associate refused to reveal the nature of her medical illness and informed Dillard’s that their requirements unlawfully invaded her right to privacy. Dillard’s considered the absences unexcused and fired the sales associate for refusing to disclose the requested medical information.

From an EEOC press release:

“This case has national implications and illustrates one of the reasons why the ADA prohibits employers from subjecting employees to disability-related inquiries not justified by business necessity,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Anna Park of the agency’s Los Angeles District. “The ADA’s prohibition of disability-related inquiries was enacted to protect employees from being subjected to harmful and unfounded stereotypes on the basis of a perceived or actual medical illness.”

San Diego Local Acting Director Raul Green said, “Employers need to be aware that the EEOC will vigorously enforce the ADA to ensure that employees are free to exercise their rights. Employees should not have to worry that this very sensitive, private and potentially harmful information will be used by the employer against them to unfairly exclude them from jobs that they could otherwise perform.”

When should HR know about an illness or disability?

A recent article from DiversityInc magazine examined issues regarding employee disabilities and illness, asking the question: When should employees tell their boss about a serious illness or disability?

Just last week the President secured protection for disabled workers by signing the ADA Amendments Act. Along with the Family and Medical Leave Act, you could assume that more employees would feel comfortable telling employers about their condition.

But even with protective legislation, the stigmas associated with an illness or disability can overshadow an employee’s training and work experience or may cause coworkers and supervisors to treat them differently.

The author suggests that it is best for an employee to disclose a serious illness or disability “as soon as practically possible” in that a company can only accommodate the employee if their condition is known.

We want to know your opinion:

When would HR managers prefer to know about an employee’s serious illness or disability? What is too soon, what is too late?

Does it impact promotion and raise decisions even if symptoms aren't showing yet? Is it really possible not to have it influence decisions?

President signs ADA Amendments Act

As expected, President Bush signed the Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act on September 25, 2008. The Act supersedes several Supreme Court decisions that unfairly limited protections under the ADA.

"This is a monumental victory for people with disabilities. As America seeks to respond to the economic challenges we face, this law -- if enforced -- will assure that people with disabilities are fairly included in the workforce and that we can do our jobs free from discrimination,” said Jim Ward, ADA Watch/National Coalition for Disability Rights founder and president.

Set to take effect January 1, 2009, the Act clarifies the definition of “disability” in that a person may be disabled even though they may use medication, prosthetics and assistive technology to alleviate their disability.

Please stay tuned to G.Neil’s HR Forum for the latest news on how the new disabilities legislation may affect your business.

Related posts:

Legal update: House passes ADA Amendments Act, President will sign “soon”

Senate passes ADA Amendments Act, House and President approval expected

Target $6 million settlement: Is your site ADA compliant?

Disabilities rights bill on the move

Legal update: House passes ADA Amendments Act, President will sign “soon”

As expected, the House of Representatives approved the ADA Amendments Act (S. 3406), following a unanimous vote in the Senate less than one week ago.

The legislation now moves to the White House where President Bush is expected to sign “soon,” according to SHRM sources.

“The bill directs the courts toward a more generous application of the ADA's definition of disability, making it clear that Congress intended the ADA's coverage to be broad and to cover anyone facing discrimination because of a disability,” according to the Associated Press.

We will continue to deliver the most current news regarding the President's upcoming decision. Check back for information on how the bill may affect your business.

Related posts:

Senate passes ADA Amendments Act, House and President approval expected

Disabilities rights bill on the move

Target $6 million settlement: Is your site ADA compliant?

Target Corp. has recently agreed to a $6 million settlement class-action lawsuit after failure to accommodate blind customers on their website.

In early 2006, The National Federation of the Blind (NFB) and others charged that blind people could not access Target.com, citing “public accommodation” provisions under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Target fought the lawsuit, claiming that ADA provisions only related to their “brick-and-mortar” stores. The court found that Target.com was a “gateway” to stores and “heavily integrated” with physical stores, making the website subject to ADA requirements.

In addition to setting up a fund from which plaintiffs can make claims, Target will make all necessary changes to their website to ensure customers using screen-reader software can find the same information and make transactions as all other users. The NFB will regularly test website improvements once completed.

Target also agreed to hold regular training sessions for its Web developers and review quarterly reports of complaints regarding Target.com’s accessibility.

Legal experts advise companies with websites that are “heavily integrated” with brick-and-mortar stores to consider upgrading, allowing better accessibility for the blind and disabled.

Experts also warn employers who regularly post employment opportunities and job applications on their website to consider making changes to comply under the ADA’s employment discrimination provisions and ensure full access to disabled individuals.

Pages

More Resources