Category Archives: EEOC

EMPLOYER NOT REQUIRED TO OFFER LIGHT DUTY POSITIONS TO PREGNANT EMPLOYEES

By:  Oyvind Wistrom

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P., No 21-1690 (7th Cir. Aug. 16, 2022) recently recognized that an employer has the right to exclude pregnant workers from its light duty work program created for employees injured on the job.  While the case addressed only the exclusion of pregnant workers under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the decision may also have implications under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Walmart’s light duty program provided that employees with lifting restrictions caused by a work injury could be offered temporary light duty work while they healed.  However, Walmart did not extend its light duty to workers injured off the job or to pregnant workers.  Instead, it required pregnant workers with lifting or other physical restrictions to take a medical leave of absence. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sue Walmart over the policy on behalf of a class of workers who were denied light duty positions during their pregnancy, and the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin granted summary judgment for the employer.

On appeal, the Seventh Circuit agreed with the lower court and affirmed the grant of summary judgment.  The panel of three judges determined that Walmart provided a legitimate reason for only offering light duty to workers injured on the job.  The Court noted that “offering temporary light duty to workers injured on the job pursuant to a state worker’s compensation law is a ‘legitimate nondiscriminatory’ justification for denying accommodations … to everyone else, such as individuals not injured on the job, including pregnant women.”  Because the company acted pursuant to a neutral worker’s compensation program that benefited employees injured on the job while limiting its labor costs and exposure to worker’s comp claims, the policy did not violate the PDA or Title VII.

Notwithstanding its ruling, the Seventh Circuit noted that employers that offer light duty to employees with job-related injuries may violate the PDA when they also provide light duty work to other groups of workers, but not to pregnant employees.  For example, if an employer implements a light duty program in which it offers light duty to employees with temporary restrictions from work-related and non-work-related injuries, but specifically excludes pregnant workers from its policy, such a policy would violate the law.  There was no evidence in the record, however, that Walmart offered light duty to workers whose injuries did not occur on the job.

While the case did not expressly address the ADA, it should be noted an employer has an obligation to provide a reasonable accommodation to a worker with a disability.  In this regard, an employer must apply its policy of creating a light duty position for an employee when s/he is occupationally injured on a non-discriminatory basis.  While the Seventh Circuit’s decision only addressed a claim of pregnancy discrimination, the decision would appear to allow employers to restrict its light duty policy to employees with occupational injuries and exclude employees with non-work-related restrictions (including workers with disabilities).  This is especially so where the company’s light duty work program does not have a set number of positions, but rather positions are created, as necessary, for each worker who sustains an occupational injury.

If you have questions or need assistance, please contact the Lindner & Marsack attorney with whom you regularly work.

EEOC EXPANDS ITS COVID-19 GUIDANCE CLARIFYING WHEN COVID-19 MAY BE A DISABILITY

By: David Keating

Throughout the pandemic, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has continuously updated its COVID-19 Guidance to provide employers with assistance on issues arising under the antidiscrimination laws that it enforces.  Yesterday, the EEOC added a new section to clarify under what circumstances COVID-19 may be considered a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

EEOC’s new questions and answers focus broadly on COVID-19 and the definition of disability under Title I of the ADA and Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act which both address employment discrimination.  The updates also provide examples illustrating how an individual diagnosed with COVID-19 or a post-COVID condition could be considered to have a disability under the laws the EEOC enforces.

Workers with disabilities stemming from COVID-19 are protected from employment discrimination and may be eligible reasonable accommodations.

As the EEOC notes, the key information includes:

  • In some cases, an applicant’s or employee’s COVID-19 may cause impairments that are themselves disabilities under the ADA, regardless of whether the initial case of COVID-19 itself constituted an actual disability.
  • An applicant or employee whose COVID-19 results in mild symptoms that resolve in a few weeks, with no other consequences, will not have an ADA disability that could make someone eligible to receive a reasonable accommodation.
  • Applicants or employees with disabilities are not automatically entitled to reasonable accommodations under the ADA. They are entitled to a reasonable accommodation when their disability requires it, and the accommodation is not an undue hardship for the employer.  Employers, however, can choose to do more than the ADA requires.
  • An employer risks violating the ADA if it relies on myths, fears, or stereotypes about a condition and prevents an employee’s return to work once the employee is no longer infectious and, therefore, medically able to return without posing a direct threat to others.

Based on this new guidance, employers need to consider each situation on a case-by-case basis and avoid assuming that simply because the employee’s medical condition and/or need for an accommodation is caused by the COVID-19 virus that it falls outside the scope of the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act.  Please do not hesitate to contact us if you need specific guidance on a particular situation.

Lindner & Marsack, S.C. represents employers in all areas of labor and employment law.  If you have any questions about the recent EEOC technical assistance or any other labor or employment issue involving your business, please contact us at any time.

The EEOC Releases Updated Guidance on Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccinations and Related Employment Laws

Leave a reply

By: Oyvind Wistrom

On December 16, 2020, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released updated guidance on the responsibilities and rights of employers and employees related to the COVID-19 vaccine, including mandatory employer vaccination programs.

The publication entitled “What You Should Know About COVID-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Laws,” is available here.  The new EEOC guidance provides information to employers and employees about how mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations interact with the legal requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA).

The EEOC guidance confirms that employers are allowed to implement and enforce a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy for employees, with certain exceptions and caveats.  Some of the key takeaways from the EEOC include the following:

  • Employers are allowed to require employees to receive an FDA approved COVID-19 vaccine (once it becomes available) as a condition of employment or continued employment.
  • Employers must attempt to accommodate employees who, due to a medical disability under the ADA or sincerely-held religious beliefs under Title VII, decline or refuse to receive the vaccine.
  • If an employer determines, based on objective evidence, that the presence of an unvaccinated employee (i.e., employee who declines or refuses to be vaccinated because of a disability or sincerely-held religious reasons), presents a direct threat to the health and safety of other persons in the workplace that cannot be reduced or eliminated through a reasonable accommodation, the employer can exclude the employee from the workplace.
  • When an employer seeks to exclude an unvaccinated employee from the workplace due to a direct threat presented by his or her presence in the workplace, the employer may not automatically terminate the employee. Rather, the employer must attempt to accommodate the employee if he or she cannot receive the vaccine due to a disability or a sincerely held religious belief. Employers must assess four factors in making this determination: 1) the duration of the risk presented by the unvaccinated employee; 2) the nature and severity of the potential harm presented by the unvaccinated employee’s presence in the workplace; 3) the likelihood that harm will occur; and 4) how imminent that harm is to others in the workplace.
  • In determining whether a reasonable accommodation exists under the ADA, the employer should consider the feasibility of possible reasonable accommodations such as working remotely, transferring the employee to another worksite where he or she can work independently, or possibly placing the employee on a leave of absence. In so doing, the employer should consider the employee’s leave rights under the FFCRA (set to expire on December 31, 2020), both state and federal FMLA, as well as under general employment policies.
  • The administration of a COVID-19 vaccine by an employer (or by a third-party with which the employer has contracted to provide vaccinations) is not a “medical examination” under the ADA because the employer is not seeking information about the employee’s current health status. Requiring a vaccination also does not implicate the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act (GINA) because an employee’s genetic information is not being used to make employment decisions and no genetic information is being sought.
  • Although the administration of the vaccine is not a “medical examination” under the ADA, the guidance notes that if a health care provider asks certain pre-vaccination screening questions to ensure there is no medical reason for a person not to receive the vaccine, these questions may constitute a “medical examination” under the ADA because they may solicit information about an employee’s disability. Therefore, any pre-vaccination screening questions that are disability-related must be job-related and consistent with business necessity, and responses should be maintained as confidential.
  • Employers are also permitted to require employees to provide proof that they received a COVID-19 vaccine. Such an inquiry is not a medical examination under the ADA because it is not likely to elicit information about an employee’s disability status.  However, an employer should be careful to ensure that employees do not disclose any medical information beyond proof of the vaccination and they should avoid asking why the employee did not receive the vaccination.

With the first round of COVID-19 vaccines finally becoming available, and with several other possible vaccines on the horizon, employers need to carefully consider whether the implementation of a mandatory vaccination program is the right business decision, or whether the spread of the virus can be ameliorated through other methods or precautions.  The nature of the business, and the amount of interaction that is required between employees, customers, clients, and vendors should help guide the decision-making process of whether a mandatory vaccination program is necessary or appropriate.

If you have any questions about these guidelines or any other matter, please contact  Oyvind Wistrom or your Lindner & Marsack attorney at (414) 273-3910 to seek counsel.

Addressing COVID-19 Workplace Issues: Responding to Employers’ Most Common Questions

Leave a reply

By:  Oyvind Wistrom and Sally Piefer

The NBA has suspended play.  The NCAA tournament has been cancelled.  The World Health Organization (WHO) has now declared that the COVID-19 Coronavirus is a pandemic.  Either your business has already been directly or indirectly affected or it inevitably will be affected by COVID-19.  What can you do as an employer?  The following tips should help you navigate the novel issues created by this unprecedented situation.

  1. What if an employee reports to work with flu-like symptoms – what can we do as an employer?

If any employee presents themselves at work with a fever or difficulty breathing, employers may ask such employees if they are experiencing influenza-like symptoms, such as fever or chills and a cough or sore throat.  Employers must maintain all information about employee illness as a confidential medical record in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).  If an employee is experiencing these symptoms, the employee should be directed to seek immediate medical evaluation.  It is also recommended that employers train supervisors on how to recognize these symptoms, while stressing the importance of not overreacting to situations in the workplace potentially related to COVID-19 in order to prevent panic among the workforce.

  1. Can we ask an employee to stay home or leave work if they exhibit symptoms of the COVID-19 coronavirus or the flu?

Yes.  The Center for Disease Control (CDC) has made it clear that employees who exhibit influenza-like symptoms at work during a pandemic should leave the workplace and be asked to stay home.  Employees who have symptoms of acute respiratory illness are recommended to stay home until they are free of a fever (100.4º F), signs of a fever, or any other symptoms for at least 24 hours, without the use of fever-reducing or other symptom altering medicines.  Now that the COVID-19 virus has been declared a pandemic by the WHO, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has stated that advising workers to go home is not disability-related if the symptoms presented are akin to the seasonal influenza.  An employer may therefore require workers to go home if they exhibit symptoms of the COVID-19 coronavirus or the flu without running afoul of the EEOC’s interpretation of the ADA.

  1. Can an employer take an employee’s temperature at work to determine whether they might be infected?

Maybe.  The ADA places restrictions on the inquiries that an employer can make into an employee’s medical status, and the EEOC considers taking an employee’s temperature to constitute a “medical examination” under the ADA.  The ADA prohibits employers from requiring medical examinations and making disability-related inquiries unless (1) the employer can show that the inquiry or exam is job-related and consistent with business necessity, or (2) the employer has a reasonable belief that the employee poses a “direct threat” to the health or safety of the individual or others that cannot otherwise be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation.

The EEOC takes the position during a pandemic that employers should rely on the latest CDC and state or local public health assessments to determine whether the pandemic rises to the level of a “direct threat.”  The assessment by the CDC as to the severity of COVID-19 will likely provide the objective evidence needed for a medical examination.  If COVID-19 becomes widespread, as determined by state or local health authorities or the CDC, then employers would likely be permitted to take an employee’s temperature at work.  However, as a practical matter, an employee may be infected with COVID-19 without exhibiting any symptoms such as a fever, so temperature checks may not be the most effective method for protecting your workforce.

  1. An employee of ours has tested positive for COVID-19. What should we do?

In addition to sending the employee with the positive test home, you should send all employees who worked closely with that employee home for a 14-day period of time to ensure the infection does not spread.  Make sure the affected employee identifies all individuals who worked in close proximity (within six feet) with them in the previous 14 days to ensure you have a full list of those who should be sent home.  When sending the employees home, do not identify by name the infected employee or you could risk a violation of the ADA.  You may also want to consider asking a cleaning / remediation company to undertake a deep cleaning of your affected workspaces. If you work in a shared office building or area, you should inform building management so they can take whatever precautions they deem necessary.

  1. Can an employee refuse to come to work because of fear of COVID-19 infection?

Employees are only entitled to refuse to report to work if they believe they are in imminent danger.  Section 13(a) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) defines “imminent danger” to include “any conditions or practices in any place of employment which are such that a danger exists which can reasonably be expected to cause death or serious physical harm immediately or before the imminence of such danger can be eliminated through the enforcement procedures otherwise provided by this Act.”  This is a relatively high standard that requires a “threat of death or serious physical harm,” or “a reasonable expectation that toxic substances or other health hazards are present, and exposure to them will shorten life or cause substantial reduction in physical or mental efficiency.”

For an employee to refuse to report for work, the threat must be immediate or imminent, which means that an employee must believe that death or serious physical harm could occur within a short period of time.  Requiring travel to certain areas of the world or requiring employees to work with patients in a medical setting without personal protective equipment at this time may rise to this threshold.  Most work conditions in the United States, however, would not presently meet this threshold.  Each case must be evaluated on its own merits and employers should seek to determine whether their workplace creates imminent danger to employees.

  1. May an employer require a new employee to have a post-offer medical examination to determine their general health status?

Yes, the ADA allows a medical examination of a new employee as long as it is required only after a conditional offer of employment is made.  The medical examination is permitted so long as all entering employees in the same job category are required to undergo the medical examination and the information obtained regarding the medical condition or history of the applicant is collected and maintained on separate forms and in separate medical files and is treated as a confidential medical record.

Employers may also ask if they are experiencing any symptoms of COVID-19 – fever, cough, shortness of breath or other acute respiratory symptoms.  If the applicant or new employee answers yes, then you can ask them to delay starting for 14 days.  Be sure to maintain the confidentiality of the responses.

  1. May an employer encourage employees to telework (i.e., work from an alternative location such as home) as an infection-control strategy during a pandemic?

Yes.  Telework is an effective infection-control strategy that is also familiar to ADA-covered employers as a reasonable accommodation.  In addition, employees with disabilities that put them at high risk for complications of pandemic influenza may request telework as a reasonable accommodation to reduce their chances of infection during a pandemic.  An employer is not required to provide telework as an option to all employees, but is recommended that if the opportunity is presented to a certain classification of employees, all other employees in that job classification should similarly be permitted to telework.

8.     During a pandemic, may an employer require its employees to adopt infection-control practices, such as regular hand washing, in the workplace?

Yes.  Requiring infection control practices, such as regular hand washing, coughing and sneezing etiquette, and proper tissue usage and disposal, does not implicate the ADA.  The messages you should be giving to your employees are:

  • Wash your hands often with soap and water for at least 20 seconds. If soap and water are not available, use an alcohol-based hand sanitizer.
  • Avoid touching your eyes, nose, and mouth with unwashed hands.
  • Avoid close contact with others, especially those who are sick.
  • Refrain from shaking hands with others for the time being.
  • Cover your cough or sneeze with a tissue, then throw the tissue in the trash.
  • Clean and disinfect frequently touched objects and surfaces.
  • And, perhaps most importantly, tell employees to stay home if they are sick.

9.     Can we require employees who are sent home or who do not report for work to use accrued PTO time?

Yes.  At least under Wisconsin law, an employer may require employees to use accrued PTO time if they are unable or unwilling to report to work – this is the case even if the employer shuts down a facility and the employee is therefore unable to work.  The only exception in Wisconsin would be with respect to employees who suffer from a serious health condition under the Wisconsin FMLA.  In such cases, an employer is not permitted to mandate that employees use their personal PTO time during the pendency of the Wisconsin approved portion of the FMLA leave (two weeks).  After an employee has used up their two-week allotment of Wisconsin FMLA, an employer can then mandate that PTO be utilized.

  1. As Spring Break is approaching, what questions can I ask about employees’ personal vacations?

You can ask your employees whether they have traveled to any locations the CDC or state health officials have indicated are destinations with a risk of community-spread coronavirus—currently about 30 countries in Europe (along with China, Iran, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan & Thailand).  Check the CDC website for a list of current countries (https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel).  The CDC recommends that anyone traveling to these countries should stay home for 14 days from the time the employee left the country and to practice social distancing.  Some employers have initiated mandatory time away from work if employees are returning from a country on the CDC list.

You can also ask employees whether they been on a cruise ship.  If on a cruise ship in the last 14 days, the employee should stay home for 14 days if a case of Coronavirus was reported on the ship during the cruise.  Otherwise, it does not appear the CDC is currently recommending any work-related social distancing – unless the person is exhibiting symptoms – fever, cough, trouble breathing.  However, the situation is in constant flux, so you may want to check the CDC website or contact legal counsel for up to date guidance.

Lindner & Marsack, S.C. represents employers in all areas of labor and employment law.  If you have any other labor or employment matter involving your business, please either contact Oyvind Wistrom at owistrom@lindner-marsack.com or Sally Piefer at spiefer@lindner-marsack.com, or any other attorney you may work with at the firm.

 

SEVENTH CIRCUIT ISSUES ADA REASSIGNMENT GUIDANCE

Leave a reply

By: Kristofor L. Hanson & Christopher J. Saugstad

November 25, 2019

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently clarified its position concerning reassignment as an accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”). Under the ADA, employers have an affirmative duty to reasonably accommodate an employee’s disability. While engaging in the interactive process to find a reasonable accommodation, in situations where an employee is unable to perform the essential functions of his or her job even with reasonable accommodations, employers are required to evaluate reassignment to a vacant position as an accommodation. Previously, in EEOC v. United Airlines, Inc., 693 F.3d 760, 764 (7th Cir. 2012), the Seventh Circuit explained that the ADA requires employers to appoint disabled employees to vacant positions for which the employee is minimally qualified, unless the reassignment would pose an undue hardship to the employer or there is a bona fide seniority system in place. Pursuant to this decision, employers cannot force the disabled employee to go through a competitive process to be placed into a vacant position as a reasonable accommodation.

On November 15, 2019, the Seventh Circuit revisited the issue of reassignment under the ADA in Ford v. Marion Cty. Sheriff’s Office, No. 18-3217, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 34072, (7th Cir. Nov. 15, 2019). Ford worked as a deputy at the county sheriff’s office until her hand was seriously injured in a car accident while on duty. Ford was reassigned to light duty for about a year until she accepted a position as a jail visitation clerk; Ford was given the option to accept the visitation position, resign, or be fired. After Ford’s reassignment, she alleged she suffered disability-based harassment by co-workers, refusals to accommodate her scheduling needs, and several discriminatory promotion denials. Ford brought an action against Marion County for violations under the ADA.

The Seventh Circuit found the district court properly granted summary judgment on Ford’s claim regarding reassignment to the visitation clerk position and explained a “demotion can be a reasonable accommodation when the employer cannot accommodate the disabled employee in her current or prior jobs or an equivalent position.” The Court pointed out EEOC guidance regarding reassignment and demotion states: “An employer may reassign an individual to a lower graded position if … there are no vacant equivalent positions for which the individual is qualified with or without reasonable accommodation.”

The Court noted that if there had been a vacant position that more closely matched Ford’s previous position, under the ADA, Marion County would have been obligated to reassign her to that position.

Significantly, the Seventh Circuit suggested that Marion County, as the employer, had an obligation to “to canvass available positions and, if a vacant job existed that Ford was qualified to perform with or without reasonable accommodations, to offer it to her.” Employers should review their current process regarding reassignment as a potential reasonable accommodation. Once reassignment becomes a potential accommodation, employers should actively canvas their current vacancies in relation to the disabled employee’s qualifications. If there is a match, the employee should be offered the job. Merely inviting employees, without any employer assistance, to apply for any vacant positions for which they think they may be qualified is insufficient.

Lindner & Marsack, S.C. represents employers in all areas of labor and employment law. If you have any questions about the ADA, reasonable accommodation and the possibility of reassignment, or any other labor or employment issue involving your business, please contact us at any time.

GOVERNOR WALKER PROPOSES TO ELIMINATE THE LABOR AND INDUSTRY REVIEW COMMISSION

Leave a reply

By:  Jonathan T. Swain

February 13, 2017

In his recently published proposed biennial budget for fiscal years 2018 and 2019, Governor Walker has proposed to eliminate the Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission (LIRC).  LIRC is an independent three member commission appointed by the Governor that currently handles all appeals of Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decisions for unemployment compensation cases, worker compensation claims, as well as state fair labor standards cases and fair employment cases in the Equal Rights Division and public accommodation cases.  LIRC would be phased out over the next three fiscal years.

Presently, LIRC has the authority to affirm, overturn and remand ALJ decision in these areas.  LIRC decisions are appealable to the State’s circuit courts.

Under Governor Walker’s proposal, Worker Compensation ALJ decisions will be reviewable by the State Department of Administration, while jobless claims and Equal Right Division decisions will be Agency administrators.  In his budget statement, Governor Walker stated that the proposed elimination of LIRC will eliminate “an unnecessary layer of government” and will make this second layer of review decisions occur much more quickly.

Of course, this is a proposed budget and, as such, is subject to negotiation with the legislature and subsequent amendment.  Further, stakeholders in the business, labor and legal community have yet to weigh-in on the Governor’s proposal.  As this issue advances, we will keep you up to date and informed.

THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION CHANGES COURSE ON RELEASING EMPLOYER POSITION STATEMENTS TO CHARGING PARTIES

Leave a reply

By: Daniel Finerty & Oyvind Wistrom

Employers that have endured the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s charge process concerning allegations of discrimination, harassment or retaliation know that an effective, persuasive position statement responding to a charge is critical to securing a successful outcome. For years, employers could be assured that the EEOC would not share its position statement or attachments with a charging party. In doing so, this procedure complied with Section 709(e) of Title VII, which provides:

It shall be unlawful for any officer or employee of the Commission to make public in any manner whatever any information obtained by the Commission pursuant to its authority under this section prior to the institution of any proceeding under this subchapter involving such information. Any officer or employee of the Commission who shall make public in any manner whatever any information in violation of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $1,000, or imprisoned not more than one year.

Notwithstanding this statute, the Commission announced a reversal of course, as of January 1, 2016, and advised that it intends to release employer position statements:

EEOC has implemented nationwide procedures that provide for the release of Respondent position statements and non-confidential attachments to a Charging Party or her representative upon request during the investigation of her charge of discrimination. … These procedures apply to all EEOC requests for position statements made to Respondents on or after January 1, 2016. … The new procedures provide for a consistent approach to be followed in all of EEOC’s offices, which enhances service to the public. The procedures will also provide EEOC with better information from the parties to strengthen our investigations.

In contrast to this new practice, the Commission will not share the charging party’s position statement with the employer. While the Commission has recognized that employer EEO-1 reports are confidential under Section 709(e) (“[a]ll reports and information from individual reports will be kept confidential, as required by Section 709(e) of Title VII. Only data aggregating information by industry or area, in such a way as not to reveal any particular employers statistics, will be made public.”), it has not explained this new interpretation or how Section 709(e) permits its one-sided disclosure of employer position statements.

The protections for information and documents deemed “confidential” by an employer is limited. The Commission’s clear delineation of the information it will consider confidential is limited to sensitive medical information, social security numbers, confidential commercial or financial information, trade secrets information; non-relevant personally identifiable information of witnesses, comparators or third parties (for example, social security numbers, dates of birth in non-age cases, home addresses, personal phone numbers, personal email addresses, etc.), and any reference to charges filed against the employer by other charging parties. “Sensitive medical information” excludes the charging party’s medical information relating to the investigation. It is critical for employers to consult with labor and employment counsel to correctly categorize confidential information and justify such designation(s) to ensure confidentiality can be secured. “[T]he agency will not accept blanket or unsupported assertions of confidentiality.”

Further, upon receipt of information deemed confidential by an employer, the Commission has indicated that it will not withhold; rather, “EEOC staff may redact confidential information as necessary prior to releasing the information to a Charging Party or her representative.”

Employers need to be mindful of the Commission’s new procedure when responding to EEOC discrimination charges. Confidential information should be withheld (when permissible) or should be designated as “confidential.” Additionally, employers should keep in mind, when drafting position statements, that a charging party or his or her attorney may receive a copy of the position statement and any attachments.

If you have questions about this new practice by the EEOC, please contact Daniel Finerty, Oyvind Wistrom, or your Lindner & Marsack contact attorney at 414-273-3910.

Lindner & Marsack Successfully Represents Local School District in Federal Court

Leave a reply

As labor and employment attorneys, we often sound like broken records in counselling our clients on the importance of documenting the performance deficiencies of poor performing employees. It cannot be overstated how compelling strong and contemporaneous documentation can be to demonstrate the actual reason an employer disciplines, demotes or terminates an employee who is not performing to the employer’s legitimate expectations. A recent lawsuit filed by a former African American principal at the Oak Creek-Franklin Joint School District provides another vivid illustration.

The plaintiff was a previous principal at one of the elementary schools within the school district. Following her removal from her position, she filed a lawsuit in U.S. Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin claiming that her removal from the district was motivated by her race, as well as in retaliation for her opposing discrimination in the workplace and raising concerns that she claimed were protected by the free speech guarantees of the First Amendment. While the federal district judge dismissed her race discrimination claim prior to trial, her claims of unlawful retaliation under both Title VII and the First Amendment were tried to a jury earlier this week.

At trial, Oyvind Wistrom represented the school district. Using the district’s detailed and contemporaneous documentation of the performance concerns, we were able to successfully show the jury that her complaints of discrimination and protected speech were not the reasons for the principal’s removal. We showed that her removal would have occurred regardless of her complaints and protected speech. After more than two days of testimony, it took the jury less than one hour to determine that the school district was justified in taking the steps it took to remove the principal. The successful defense of this case could not have happened without the testimony of several key district employees and the presence of clear and contemporaneous performance documentation by the school district.

SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES RELIGIOUS ACCOMMODATION OBLIGATION

Leave a reply

On June 1, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores.  The issue in the case was the scope of an employer’s obligation to accommodate the real or perceived religious beliefs and practices of employees and applicants.

Samantha Elauf was a practicing Muslim who wore a headscarf to her interview with Abercrombie.  During the interview there was no discussion of her headscarf or her religious beliefs.  The interviewer assumed Ms. Elauf wore the headscarf for religious reasons.  Abercrombie determined the headscarf would violate its dress code and rejected Ms. Elauf’s application for that reason.

The Supreme Court ruled that Abercrombie’s decision was religious discrimination prohibited by Title VII.  Religious discrimination occurs if the real or perceived need for a religious accommodation is a motivating factor in an employer’s decision.  It does not need to be the sole reason.  It is not necessary for an employer to have actual knowledge of the religious beliefs or practices of the employee or applicant.  An employer’s perception that the relevant behavior is religious will be enough.  The Supreme Court also stated that employers must accommodate the religious beliefs or practices of applicants and employees unless the accommodation would create an undue hardship.

Following this decision, employers may want to treat real or perceived religious practices and beliefs the same way they treat real or perceived disabilities.  For example, employers may want to present applicants with all relevant job requirements and expectations, including such expectations as adhering to a dress code policy or working on Saturdays and Sundays.  Employers can ask applicants if there is any reason he/she cannot perform these job duties.  Employers can also ask whether an applicant believes he/she will need an accommodation.

When an applicant or employee has a religious belief or practice which is inconsistent with his or her job duties, employers must explore possible accommodations.  If no accommodation is possible, employers should consider how they can prove the necessary accommodation would create an undue hardship.

If you have any questions about how this decision may impact your organization’s hiring or accommodation practices, please contact John Murray or any other Lindner & Marsack attorney.

 

PROPOSED EEOC WELLNESS PLAN REGULATIONS FOCUS ON COVERAGE, INCENTIVES AND VOLUNTARINESS OF PARTICIPATION

Leave a reply

On April 20, 2015, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission published its proposed regulations regulating employer wellness plans under the Americans with Disabilities Act.  The proposed rules attempt to strike a balance between allowing wellness plans to offer incentives for employee participation while, at the same time, limiting incentives to defined percentages in order to prevent economic coercion that could render a participant’s provision of medical information involuntary.

While the proposed rules will be reviewed in depth on April 28, 2015 at our Annual Compliance/Best Practice Seminar (please register by clicking here), here are some of the basics regarding the proposed rules:

  • The proposed rules re-assert the EEOC’s position that employee health programs that include disability-related inquiries or medical examination (including inquiries or medical examinations) that are part of a health risk assessment or medical history must be voluntary in order to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. By contrast, employee health programs that do not include disability-related inquiries or medical examinations are not covered by the proposed rules. While a smoking cessation program that asks participants if they smoke and provide information regarding how to quit is not subject to the proposed rules, a biometric screening or other medical examination that tests for nicotine or tobacco is a medical examination.
  • The proposed rules adopt the already existing HIPAA limitation, as amended by the Affordable Care Act, on wellness plan incentives. The proposed rules clarify that an employer may offer limited incentives up to a maximum of 30% of the total cost of employee-only coverage to promote an employee’s participation in a wellness program that includes disability-related inquiries or medical examinations as long as participation is voluntary. Note that the EEOC does not distinguish between whether the incentive is provided in the form of a reward or penalty. While the proposed rules acknowledge the HIPAA/ACA limitation which permits plans to offer incentives as high as 50% of the total cost of employee coverage for tobacco-related wellness programs, such as smoking cessation programs, the proposed rules are clear that such programs are not covered by the regulations. Again, programs that do not contain disability-related inquiries or medical examination are not covered by the proposed rules.
  • The proposed rules specifically define “voluntary,” a critical term to the ADA analysis. Companies should ensure their wellness plans that includes disability-related inquiries or medical examinations are be voluntary and comply with the ADA by ensuring the plan:
    • Does not require employees to participate;
    • Does not deny coverage under any of its group health plans or particular benefits packages within a group health plan for non-participation or limit the extent of such coverage (except pursuant to allowed incentives); and
    • Does not take any adverse employment action or retaliate against, interfere with, coerce, intimidate, or threaten employees within the meaning of Section 503 of the ADA, at 42 U.S.C. 12203.
  • In addition, in order to be voluntary, a plan must provide notice to participants that:
    • Is written so that employees from whom the information is being gathered are reasonably likely to understand it;
    • Describes the type of medical information that will be obtained and the specific purpose for which it will be used; and,
    • Describes the restrictions on disclosure of the employee’s medical information, the employer representatives with whom the information will be shared and the methods the employer will employ to prevent improper disclosure of the medical information including HIPAA-related protections.
  • Employer wellness plans should provide opportunities for reasonable accommodation for employees with disabilities to fully participate and earn any reward or avoid any penalty offered by the plan, absent undue hardship, by providing a reasonable alternative standard for the employee or providing an individual waiver. For example, if an employer’s wellness plan’s outcome-based program requires employees to achieve an average blood sugar level of 140 or less, the employer may have to provide a reasonable alternative standard to allow participation by diabetic employee for whom that goal is not achievable.

More information regarding the proposed rules and best practices for ensuring your Company’s wellness plan complies with the proposed rules will be provided on April 28, 2015. We will also present an annual review of developments in labor and employment law and discuss the National Labor Relations Board’s “quickie” election rules which went into effect on April 15, 2015, among other topics. Please register to join us for the half-day educational seminar by clicking here.