The law forbids discrimination when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, and any other term or condition of employment.  http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/disability.cfm

What do you think?  Leave a comment.

The breach of contract lawsuit alleges production was halted on the CBS sitcom in part to punish Sheen for recent behavior that has included two hospitalizations and, in recent weeks, a series of interviews in which he has attacked executive producer Chuck Lorre. But the suit and Sheen’s attorney, Marty Singer, say most of the incidents cited by Warner Bros. for firing Sheen occurred before his tirades against Lorre began.

“The suspension and termination of Mr. Sheen occurred only after Mr. Sheen had finally been provoked into criticizing Lorre in response to his harassment and disparagement campaign which had been going on for years,” according to the suit.

The filing comes four days after Sheen was terminated from “Two and a Half Men,” leaving the top-rated sitcom’s future in doubt.

Sheen’s lawsuit alleges that Warner Bros. bowed to Lorre’s desire to punish Sheen, and that the producer and studio conspired to blame the actor for causing production to stop.

A termination letter cited concerns about Sheen’s health. Singer said it would be illegal for the studio to fire the actor if he had the physical and mental issues described in the letter.

“We’re saying he was ready, willing and able to work and he could have worked,” Singer said.

Read More here…

Copper Manufacturer Refused to Hire Applicant Because of His Participation in Medically Supervised Drug Rehabilitation Program, Federal Agency Charged

PRESS RELEASE
2-11-11

PITTSBURGH – A major copper parts manufacturer will pay $85,000 and furnish significant remedial relief to settle a federal disability discrimination lawsuit, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced today. The EEOC had charged that Hussey Copper, Ltd. unlawfully refused to hire a job applicant because of his record of a disability and because they regarded him as disabled.

According to the EEOC’s suit, Leetsdale, Pa.-based Hussey Copper offered Donald Teaford a job as a production laborer but later unlawfully rescinded the job offer based on his disability. The job offer had been conditioned on Teaford passing 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. The company then rescinded the job offer, mistakenly concluding that Teaford was a safety risk due to his methadone treatments, the EEOC said. 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 District Director Spencer H. Lewis, Jr. of the EEOC’s Philadelphia District Office, which oversees Pennsylvania, Delaware, West Virginia, Maryland and parts of New Jersey and Ohio. “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.”

Refusing to hire a qualified individual because of his disability, record of disability or because the employer perceives a person as being disabled violates the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Civil Action No. 08-809, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

The parties reached agreement to settle the case by consent decree after conducting a three-day non-jury trial in federal court. In addition to the $85,000 in monetary relief to Teaford, Hussey Copper will hire him as a mason utility laborer. The five-year consent decree resolving the lawsuit enjoins Hussey Copper from further engaging in any employment practice that discriminates based on disability. The decree mandates that Hussey Copper will revise and disseminate policies prohibiting discrimination based on disability and must set up procedures for promptly investigating and addressing such misconduct. The company must also provide anti-discrimination training and post a notice on the settlement.

EEOC Regional Attorney Debra Lawrence said, “We are pleased that in addition to the monetary relief and the injunctive relief that will benefit all company employees and applicants, Hussey Copper will also hire Mr. Teaford. He now has the opportunity to earn a living performing a job for which he is well-qualified.”

In Fiscal Year 2010, private sector workplace discrimination charge filings with the EEOC hit an unprecedented level of 99,922, which included a record-high number of disability charges (25,165) – an increase of 17.3 percent in disability charges over the prior fiscal year.

According to company information, Hussey Copper is the world’s leading producer of copper busbar (a thick strip of copper or aluminum that conducts electricity within a switchboard, distribution board, substation or other electrical apparatus).

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov

When a worker is seriously injured while at work, they could perhaps receive workers’ compensation benefits. Though only some accidents or afflictions make a person eligible for reimbursement, a great many do, and you’ll want to explain any any sort of accident to your employer immediately. Following that, your claim is going to be looked at by your business’s insurance company, and compensation will be given or rejected. If a claim was refused mistakenly, you’ll want to get a lawyer at your earliest convenience. If compensation is awarded, how can you be certain it’s going to take care of everything you might need? Here’s a short summary of the different forms of workers compensation, and the way each could affect your future.

Medical compensations tend to be the most common, and protect anything from the diagnosis and initial medical center visit, to prolonged assistance, prescribed medications, surgeries and necessary medical accessories. Commuting both to and from a medical facility is usually covered; sometimes it could also cover counseling, therapy options and non-traditional remedies, but you will need to ascertain from your attorney for sure before using those.

If the accident was major, there could be disability benefits that are available. The four different kinds of disability benefits are short-term and permanent partial impairment, and temporary or long-term total disability. Temporary partial disability means that there are some portions of your work you can’t currently do, but may be able to do later in life; permanent partial implies that the injury is irreversible, but does not necessarily impede your job. Short-term total incapability means you’re completely unfit to be returning to work, but will be stable to achieve this one day. Permanent total impairment would mean your impairment inhibits you against ever going back to your job or one like it.

The sum of disability compensation one is awarded is dependent on many conditions – one’s paycheck prior to the accident, how much days they have missed, and daily life habits and needs. This is assessed thoroughly well before any payment is dispensed, and the guidelines regarding each may vary among states. As a consequence of the difficult nature of the relevant laws, and the participation of the employer’s insurance company, it will be smart to obtain the help of a skilled attorney familiar with worker’s damages claims.

If you or someone you know has been injured while at work, don’t hesitate to find a Maryland injury attorney well-versed in cases of worker’s compensation. An experienced Baltimore injury lawyer can help you get the support you deserve.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Greg_L_Stevens
http://EzineArticles.com/?Types-of-Disability-Compensation&id=5465323

By James Witherspoon

The Social Security Administration realized that simply being ‘disabled’ did not mean that people could, or should stop working. People who had the will and mental fitness to continue working should not have been penalized by taking away their SS benefits if they were to start working again. As such, they created the PASS program, Plan to Achieve Self Support, which allows individuals to set aside some of their income so that they can eventually reenter the workforce.

General expenses associated with returning to work can include educational expenses, transportation costs or a vehicle, materials to start a business, equipment, a computer, and others as needed. After figuring out what field of work an individual wants to pursue, PASS can help individuals afford to reenter the workforce.

The following list provides a few of the eligibility criteria needed to set up a PASS:

• Person must be considered disabled by the Social Security Administration
• Person must be under age 65
• Person must meet all SSI eligibility criteria
• Person must set up accounts to set aside earnings or resources for PASS

A number of other factors can determine your eligibility criteria and the exact amount you might be able to add onto your social security benefits can be calculated with the help of an attorney.

You will need to have a feasible occupational goal if you wish to start your own business. You must also set up a proposal and detail the time by which you expect to meet certain benchmarks and financial goals. Finally, you must also show how much you will possibly earn, what you intend to do with your income, and also state your assumptions such as cost estimates and location expenses.

An experienced social security attorney can help you plan your goals and can also help you start your business.

For more information, visit the website of the dedicated Indianapolis social security attorneys of the Hankey Law Office today.

James Witherspoon

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=James_Witherspoon
http://EzineArticles.com/?PASS-to-Return-to-Work&id=5046887

But unlike other cases of discrimination, there are some cases wherein discrimination IS permitted. A person who is handicapped from walking is of course, given special thought and decision whether to be allowed to own and use a car. A blind person may not be allowed access to public transportation too, on account that it can be quite dangerous for said person.

But how would you define disability? Pointing out which person is disabled and which is not ain’t a matter of relativity and personal opinion. There are certain criteria and guidelines followed that can determine a person to be disabled or not. Disability comes from the root phrase with the definition of “having an ability removed.” This ability may or may not affect the person’s normal routines from when he was still normally living.

A legally disabled person is someone who has impairments either in the mind or in the body. The loss of sight, or blindness is considered a disability. The loss of hearing is a disability. The loss of sanity is, yes, a disability. Dyslexia, too, is considered a disability. Disfigurement like burns or amputation can be a form of disability as well.

Progressive sickness such as AIDS or sclerosis is a special type of disability. They get worse over time. Once a person is diagnosed to have progressive diseases, he or she is considered disabled upon diagnosis. This is an expectation of disability, and even though if the person is still feeling well, can be subjected to benefits and special or legal discrimination.

To find out exactly how employee bullying works, visit this website about what you can do to protect yourself..

Employee With Lupus, Breathing Problems and Enlarged Heart Denied Any Accommodation, Federal Agency Charged

NASHVILLE – Celestica Inc., a Canadian electronics manufacturer service company doing business in the United States as Celestica Corporation, will pay $102,100 and provide other relief to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.

The EEOC’s suit (No. 3:09-0813, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee) had charged that Celestica willfully ignored requests for reasonable accommodations under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). An employee, hired through a placement agency, worked inside a 400,000-square-foot warehouse in Mt. Juliet, Tenn., operated by Celestica. She has lupus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and cardiomyopathy. She requested use of her own electric wheelchair to get to her desk inside the warehouse from a handicapped parking space close to the side entrance. Although the placement agency allowed use of the wheelchair, Celestica ignored her requests and acted as if they had never occurred, the EEOC said. She continued working for a few months without any accommodation, but ultimately quit.

Denial of a reasonable accommodation to an otherwise qualified individual with a disability violates Title I of the ADA, unless providing the accommodation would pose an undue hardship. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement.

Besides providing monetary relief, the two-year consent decree settling the suit, signed by Judge Todd Campbell on April 7, 2010, enjoins Celestica from further refusing or ignoring any request from an individual with a disability for a reasonable accommodation; requires the company to issue its policy regarding reasonable accommodations under the ADA to all employees in the United States; train its site managers and human resources managers on reasonable accommoda­tions; report requests for reasonable accommodations to the EEOC; have the trainer administer a test after the training and review the test results with the trainees; and post notices on the settlement and the ADA.

“Employers cannot simply ignore requests for reasonable accommodations of a qualified individual with a disability,” said Faye A. Williams, the EEOC regional attorney for the Memphis District Office. “Rather, they must take an active role in determining whether the accommodation can be provided or whether it would impose an undue hardship. We are pleased that Celestica joined us in a quick resolution to save all parties time and expense.”

Celestica, Inc., located in Toronto, Canada, is a global provider of services for electronics manufacturers. It has over 38,000 employees worldwide.

The EEOC is responsible for enforcing the nation’s laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

Meat Processor Violated Federal Law by Refusing to Rehire Epileptic Employee Because of His Disability, Federal Agency Charges

KANSAS CITY, Mo. – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today announced that it has filed a disability discrimination lawsuit against global meat processor Tyson Foods, Inc. The suit alleges that Tyson refused to rehire an employee at its Sedalia, Mo., location for a full-time position in the maintenance department because of his epilepsy.

The EEOC’s lawsuit charged that Tyson violated civil rights laws in May 2008 when the company revoked the offer of employment it extended to Mark White after the company doctor learned of his epilepsy and asserted his belief that there was no job White could perform at Tyson with that disability. At the time of his application, White had not had a seizure in over 15 years. White also had successfully worked at Tyson in the maintenance department on two prior occasions after he was diagnosed with epilepsy but before the company had hired a doctor to perform medical screenings.

Disability discrimination violates the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). The suit seeks back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, and injunctive relief. The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. Tyson Foods, Inc., Case No. 2:10-cv-04072-NKL) in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri only after investigating White’s charge of discrimination, finding merit, and attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through the agency’s conciliation process.

“It is illegal for a company to refuse to employ a disabled person while assuming the person cannot perform the job,” said Barbara A. Seely, regional attorney of the EEOC’s St. Louis District Office. “This is true whether it is the company doctor or a member of management who is making the assumption. All applicants must be evaluated based on their individual capabilities and skills, not stereotypes.”

According to company information, Tyson Foods, headquartered in Springdale, Ark., is one of the world’s largest processors and marketers of chicken, beef and pork. The company employs over 117,000 people at more than 400 facilities and offices in the United States and around the world.

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the Commission is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

New Orleans Store Fired Employee Because of Ulcerative Colitis, Federal Agency Says

PRESS RELEASE
1-7-10

HOUSTON — Saks Fifth Avenue, the high-end retailer based in New York City, has agreed to pay $170,000 to settle a disability discrimination suit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Oppor­tunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today. The settlement resolves the charge of a former Saks makeup artist, Marlene Babin, who claimed that Saks fired her from its New Orleans store because of her disability, ulcerative colitis.

According to the EEOC’s suit (No. 08-4464 in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana), Babin began working for Saks in 2000. She was diagnosed with ulcerative colitis, an inflammatory bowel disease, in 1999. From February of 2004 through December of 2004, Babin underwent five major surgeries in connection with her colitis. During this time, she spent a total of three months in the hospital and had to take four extended medical leaves of absence from work.

In January of 2005, while Babin was recovering from her fifth surgery, Saks informed her that she had to return to work in February or be fired, claiming that she had exhausted her available leave. In fact, Babin had more than 900 hours of available paid leave balances, the EEOC said. Although Babin had been scheduled by her surgeon to return to work in March, she obtained a release to return earlier, to avoid being fired.

Just before her return, however, she fell and broke her wrist. On the next work day, Saks told Babin that she was terminated, effective immediately, because she had allegedly exhausted her available leave, and because she could not be accommodated to work with her broken wrist, even though Babin had been working with the broken wrist for six days. However, two other employees in the New Orleans store had in recent years worked with a broken wrist or hand, and were not fired. Saks told Babin to reapply once her wrist had healed.

On the day after her cast was removed, Babin applied for an open makeup artist position at the store’s La Mer counter. Six weeks later, Babin interviewed for the La Mer position. That same day, Saks sent Babin a letter stating that it did not have any positions appropriate for her background, even though Babin had more than 20 years of experience as a makeup artist, the EEOC said. Saks left the position vacant for about two months, later hiring a non-disabled person with no full-time experience as a makeup artist.

Saks later admitted that Babin had in fact been “very qualified” for the La Mer position. The EEOC contended that Saks fired Babin because of her colitis, and that the issue of her broken wrist was merely a cover for its discriminatory motives.

Disability discrimination violates the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement. Babin was also represented by private attorney Jeffrey T. Greenberg.

After extensive sworn deposition testimony was taken from witnesses in the case, Saks filed a motion with the court, asking that the suit be dismissed for lack of evidence. Federal Judge Martin L.C. Feldman, presiding for U.S. District Court in New Orleans, issued a 30-page decision in which he denied Saks’s motion to dismiss the case and set forth reasons why a jury could find in Babin’s favor. The decision set the stage for a jury trial, which will not be necessary now because of the settlement.

Besides the monetary award, the company agreed to a number of measures, such as imple­menting a written policy on disability discrimination and having supervisory and human resources staff undergo training on disability discrimination on an annual basis during the two-year period of the consent decree.

Babin commented on the settlement, “I was devastated when Saks fired me and then refused to hire me back. I loved my job and took a lot of pride and joy from working with people. The court’s decision in refusing to throw my case out means a great deal to me. I am grateful that I had the oppor­tunity to have my story heard. I feel that by this settlement, justice was served.”

Jim Sacher, the EEOC’s regional attorney in Houston, who is in charge of all EEOC litigation in Louisiana, said, “This is a strong and appropriate settlement. The allegations here were very serious and were supported by a wealth of solid evidence. Ms. Babin was an excellent employee who did not deserve to be fired because of her disability. We are pleased that Saks has agreed to compen­sate Ms. Babin and to take additional steps which will benefit employees and applicants in the future. The EEOC will continue to scrutinize situations like this very closely, and to file suit where necessary to enforce the ADA.”

According to company information, Saks has 53 stores nationwide and employs approximately 15,000 people. In 2009, Saks reported a net worth of more than $900 million.

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

Wal-Mart Sued for Disability Discrimination

EEOC Says Retail Giant Violated ADA by Refusing to Accommodate Deaf Worker

PRESS RELEASE
1-27-10

ALEXANDRIA, Va. – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today announced a disability discrimination lawsuit against global retail giant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. for refusing to provide a reasonable accommodation to a deaf employee at Wal-Mart Store #2258 in Alexandria, Va.

According to the EEOC litigation, Wal-Mart violated the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) by failing provide an accommodation to former employee Stephanie Holmes, from around November 2002 until December 2006. Holmes, who is deaf and communicates primarily using American Sign Language (ASL), worked as a stocker. The EEOC charged that in order to perform her job, Holmes needed an ASL interpreter and/or comprehensive written notes at various times throughout her employment to effectively communicate with her managers, co-workers and, occasionally, with customers. However, Wal-Mart refused to provide the accommodation, despite Holmes’ verbal and written requests in accordance with the ADA.

The EEOC further alleges that because of Wal-Mart’s failure to provide Holmes with a reasonable accommodation, she was denied equal access to the benefits and privileges of employment that other Wal-Mart employees enjoyed. For example, the suit alleges that Holmes was routinely denied access to information provided to other employees by Wal-Mart because she could not hear and/or understand the information, including information disseminated at staff meetings.

The ADA makes it unlawful for an employer to refuse to provide a reasonable accommodation unless doing so would pose an undue hardship on the employer. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Civil Action No.1:10-cv-00075), after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement out of court. The suit seeks compensatory damages and punitive damages for Holmes, as well as injunctive and other non-monetary relief.

“Employers must recognize that they have an obligation to provide reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Lynette A. Barnes of the agency’s Charlotte District, which includes Virginia. “It’s unfortunate that twenty years after the enactment of the ADA, some employers still haven’t gotten the message that disability discrimination is unlawful and will not be tolerated. This suit should remind employers that the EEOC will not waiver in enforcing the ADA.”

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting discrimination in employment. Further information about the Commission is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov

Disabled Worker Physically Threatened and Harassed, Federal Agency Said

PRESS RELEASE
3-2-10

PHILADELPHIA – Alstrun LLP, which used to own and operate a Philadelphia McDonald’s, will pay $90,000 and furnish significant equitable relief to settle a federal discrimination lawsuit on behalf of a worker with an intellectual disability, the U.S. Equal Employ­ment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced today.

The EEOC alleged in the suit that Timothy Artis, a lot and lobby worker at the McDonald’s at 7600 City Line Avenue, was unlawfully harassed based on his intellectual disability, in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). Even though Artis successfully performed his job duties, his super­visors, other managers and co-workers repeatedly called him offensive and degrading names because of his disability. The harassment included physical shoving and threats, including one occasion when a co-worker threatened Artis with a box cutter, the EEOC charged in its lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Civil Action No. 09-4347.

Artis’s mother complained repeatedly to store officials about the harassment, but the restaurant failed to take appropriate action to stop it. Artis was subsequently compelled to quit due to the unchecked verbal and physical abuse, according to the EEOC.

The ADA prohibits discrimination and harassment based on disability. The EEOC attempted to reach a settlement out of court before filing suit.

In addition to paying $90,000 to Artis, the two-year consent decree settling the suit provides important equitable relief, including enjoining Alstrun from discriminating based on disability in the future. Alstrun will post and maintain EEOC remedial notices and posters. Further, Alstrun must train all managers and supervisors about the ADA’s protections against disability discrimination and provide reports to the agency about the resolution of any disability discrimination complaints it receives.

“The ADA requires employers to provide a work environment free from unlawful abuse and harassment,” said Acting Regional Attorney Debra Lawrence of the EEOC’s Philadelphia District Office, which oversees Pennsylvania, Delaware, West Virginia, Maryland and parts of New Jersey and Ohio. “We are pleased that Alstrun worked with us to resolve this lawsuit for satisfactory monetary relief and equitable remedies designed to prevent future harassment or discrimination.”

During Fiscal Year 2009, disability discrimination charges reached a record level of 21,451– an increase of 10 percent from the prior fiscal year.

According to company records, Alstrun LLP now operates McDonald’s franchises in Brookhaven and Parksburg, Pa.

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov