ADA Legal News

EEOC and Coca-Cola Refreshments USA, Inc. Enter into Agreement to Improve Disability Leave Practices

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Employment Commission (EEOC) and Coca-Cola Refreshments USA, Inc., have entered into a settlement agreement to strengthen and improve the company's policies and practices for accommodation of employees with disa­bilities.

Maryland: EEOC Sues Cracker Barrel Old Country Store for Disability Discrimination

Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. violated the ADA when it refused to hire a qualified deaf applicant for a dishwasher position because of his deafness, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it announced.

According to the EEOC, the Cracker Barrel store in Linthicum Heights, Maryland, refused to interview the applicant when he arrived for a scheduled appointment, and failed to hire him although three dishwashers were hired shortly afterwards.

Pennsylvania: EEOC Sues Adecco USA For Disability Discrimination

Adecco USA, Inc., a staffing agency, violated the ADA by refusing to offer a job to an individual based on his actual and perceived disability, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it filed.

According to the EEOC, the applicant, who was seeking a job in a food packaging facility, asked for an accommodation on a written pre-employment test. The accommodation was provided and the applicant passed the test, but the agency told him he was “too slow” for the production job.

D.C. Court: “ADA Interactive Process that Took Nearly 2 Years Didn't Create an 'Undue Delay'”

This article reports on a recent ruling by the federal district court for the District of Columbia. The lawsuit, Matos v DeVos (U.S. Department of Education), was brought under the Rehabilitation Act by an employee who worked for the Department and claimed it failed to accommodate her disability (multiple chemical sensitivity) in a timely manner.

The court found that the employer engaged in good faith in ongoing efforts to accommodate the worker, providing her with variety of accommodations, including a filter and mask which she specifically requested, providing her with a private office, and allowing her to work from home at times. The employer also offered the accommodation of assigning the worker to a different building, but the offer was rejected by the employee.

The court also noted that the employer searched for a reassignment that would allow working from home full-time (the employee’s job required presence in the office at least some of the time) but could not find any such vacant position, so the employer created a new position as an accommodation, something an employer is not required to do.