The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is a federal agency responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, including disability discrimination.  In a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by EEOC lawyers on September 29, 2011, the federal agency charges that a Dallas trucking company refused to hire a paraplegic applicant for a management position when it learned of his disability.  See, http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/9-29-11b.cfm .  According to the EEOC, the applicant became a paraplegic in 2003 as a result of a car accident and was contacted by the Dallas trucking company after he posted his resume on a job search website.  The initial interview occurred over the phone.  The EEOC alleges that during the in-person interview concern was expressed to the applicant that he would not be able to keep up with the pace of operations.  After several weeks of communication with the Dallas trucking company, the applicant was ultimately informed that he had not been selected for hire into either of the positions for which he had originally been considered despite his qualifications.  An EEOC trial lawyer stated: “Employers should not allow false perceptions or stereotypes about disabilities to taint hiring decisions.” 

Refusing to hire an individual because of his disablity violates the Americans With Disabilities Act.  EEOC lawyers filed the disability discrimination lawsuit in Dallas after the federal agency first attempted to reach a pre-litigation, voluntary settlement through its conciliation process.  In fiscal year 2010, 25,165 ADA charges were filed with the EEOC and state and local anti-discrimination agencies, an increase of 17% from fiscal year 2009.

A New Mexico-based convenience store chain, which operates over 300 stores in Texas and New Mexico, agreed to pay $37,000 and furnish other relief in order to settle a retaliation lawsuit filed by the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on behalf of an employee who had worked for the company for almost ten years before being fired for cooperating in an EEOC disability discrimination charge investigation.  See, http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/9-13-11.cfm .  According to the EEOC, the employee worked for the company in Santa Anna, Texas, and was fired shortly after the company received notification that his statements in the EEOC investigation led to an EEOC finding of violation in connection with another worker’s charge of disability discrimination.   EEOC attorneys brought the suit pursuant to the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), which includes a section prohibiting discrimination against any individual based on that individual’s testimony, assistance, or participation in any manner in an investigation into an alleged ADA violation.  EEOC attorneys filed the retaliation lawsuit after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement.  An EEOC attorney with the EEOC’s Dallas District Office was quoted, in part, as saying:  “We will always be willing to agressively pursue the claim of an employee who we believe is punished for providing honest testimony in a federal investigation.” 

In Fiscal Year 2010, retaliation charges filed with the EEOC nationwide accounted for 36.3% of all filings.  More information about the EEOC and the laws it enforces is available at www.eeoc.gov . 

Employees who participate in federal investigations into discrimination which are conducted by the EEOC may contact the EEOC and an attorney to determine whether a retaliation lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the facts and circumstances of the potential employment discrimination case.  Further in this regard, whether one is subjected to workplace retaliation in Dallas, Houston, Plano or elsewhere in Texas, Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code and Title VII of the Civil rights Act of 1964 also protect individuals against employment discrimination, as well as retaliation for opposing discrimination or participating in any manner in an EEOC proceeding by filing a charge, testifying, or assisting in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under Title VII.  See, http://www.twc.state.tx.us/crd/facts.html .

Discharging an individual because of a disability violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is a federal agency responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment-related disability discrimination.  In this regard, the EEOC posting at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/8-16-11c.cfm announced filing of a federal lawsuit by the EEOC in which agency attorneys contend that a newspaper company violated federal law by terminating a disabled manager because of his back injury and neurological impediments.  More specifically, the EEOC disability discrimination lawsuit charges that the company terminated the employee when he returned to work after a medical leave of absence and sought a reasonable accommodation.  According to the EEOC, the employee worked as a print manager and commercial print job supervisor, and, in February 2008, went on medical leave for back surgery due to a herniated disc.  The EEOC said that during surgery he sustained permanent spinal cord damage which limited some lower body functions, so he requested a reasonable accommodation but was terminated one week after he returned to work.  EEOC attorneys filed the disability discrimination lawsuit after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement throught the agency’s conciliation process.

Whether workplace disability discrimination related to back injuries or complications from a disc herniation occurs in Beaumont, Conroe, Houston or elsewhere, employees subjected to termination based on a back injury disability may contact the EEOC and an attorney to determine if a disability discrimination lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the particular facts and circumstances of the potential back injury discrimination claim.

In its posting at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/8-23-11.cfm , the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (”EEOC”) announced filing of a disablity discrimination lawsuit in which the EEOC alleges that a national department store retail company violated federal law when it refused to accommodate a diabetic employee’s request for a regular schedule and forced her to quit her job.  More specifically, the EEOC’s lawsuit charges that the company failed to accommodate an employee who began to suffer significant complications to her diabetes after the company switched her from her long-held, set schedule to an irregular schedule, ignoring, later, her oral requests for a return to a set schedule even after she brought in a doctor’s note explaining her need to work a predictable schedule.  As stated in the EEOC’s Press Release, when she told the company that the scheduled hours could kill her, a company store manager laughed and informed her that she would not be accommodated, forcing her resignation. 

Disability discrimination, including the failure to reasonably accommodate an employee’s disability, violates the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA).  EEOC attorneys filed the lawsuit after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through the federal agency’s conciliation process.  An EEOC trial attorney quoted in the Press Release stated, in part, as follows:  “Employers are obligated to reasonably accommodate employees with disabilities, and this obligation becomes even more serious when a worker has a potentially life-threatening illness.”  More information about the EEOC and the federal laws it enforces is available at www.eeoc.gov . 

Whether workplace diabetes discrimination occurs in Conroe, Beaumont, Houston or elsewhere, employees subjected to disability harassment may contact the EEOC or an attorney to determine whether a disability discrimination lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the particular facts and circumstances of the potential diabetes related employment discrimination claim.

In a Press Release at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/7-26-11b.cfm , the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced filing of a disability discrimination lawsuit against a fabrication company alleged to have violated federal law by firing an employee because he inquired about taking time off for shoulder surgery and for participating in an interview with an EEOC investigator in a prior case.  According to the EEOC, the fired employee had inquired about taking time off to have shoulder surgery for a shoulder injury suffered on-the-job.  In addition, the EEOC also asserts that the company’s motivation to fire the employee was his participation as a witness in a prior, unrelated EEOC investigation which resulted in an EEOC lawsuit being filed against the company on August 31, 2009.  As described in the EEOC Press Release, the company confronted the employee the next day about his interview with an EEOC investigator, demanded that he sign a statement about his interview and then fired him at the end of his shift.

Disability discrimination in employment violates the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA).  Retaliation against an employee for cooperating in a discrimination investigation is also unlawful.  In this regard, the EEOC is a federal agency responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination and retaliation.  

An EEOC attorney quoted in the Press Release stated, in part, as follows:  “The allegations in this complaint - and we intend to prove their truth in court - present a stark example of the chilling effect employer retaliation can have on the EEOC’s ability to root out discrimination in the workplace.”  More information about the EEOC may be found in its website at www.eeoc.gov .

In a Press Release at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/7-28-11c.cfm , attorneys with the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced filing of a disability discrimination lawsuit against a Temp Agency accused of violating federal law by refusing to allow an employee to return to work because of his epilepsy.  According to the EEOC, the Temp Agency placed the employee with a company where he unpacked and sorted ink cartridges.  After he experienced a brief epileptic seizure on his first day of work, the company allowed him to work the rest of the day, but asked him to provide a note from his doctor authorizing him to return to work.  As described in the Press Release, the employee provided the note to the Temp Agency the next day, but the Temp Agency neither advised him that the note was inadequate nor forwarded the note to the company, and the employee was not permitted to return to work and was effectively terminated. 

Such alleged misconduct violates the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits disability discrimination.  In this regard, the EEOC is a federal agency responsible for for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination and the EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a voluntary pre-litigation settlement.  More information about the EEOC and the laws it enforces may be found in the agency’s website at www.eeoc.gov . 

Whether employment related epilepsy discrimination occurs in Beaumont, Houston, San Antonio or elsewhere, employees subjected to disability discrimination may contact the EEOC and a lawyer to determine if an epilpepsy employment discrimination lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the particular circumstances and facts of the potential discrimination claim.

On June 27, 2011, the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued a Press Release at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/6-27-11b.cfm , announcing settlement of a disability discrimination lawsuit against a nationwide restaurant chain.  EEOC lawyers charged in the case that the restaurant chain refused to provide one of its restaurant managers with legally required reasonable accommodations for her disability, a leg amputation.  According to the EEOC, the company prohibited her from working in its restaurants because of her disability, despite her desire to return to work, and then fired her because of her disability.

Interestingly, the EEOC further charged that the restaurant business maintained a maximum medical leave policy that automatically denied workers any additional medical leave beyond a pre-determined limit, even when additional medical leave was required by the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) reasonable accommodation, which resulted in the unlawful termination of a class of workers.  Consequently, in addition to a monetary payment to the fired restaurant manager, the consent decree settling the lawsuit will also provide monetary relief to 33 additional workers who EEOC lawyers charged were denied reasonable accommodations and unlawfully terminated.  A trial lawyer quoted in the EEOC Press Release stated that “Industry should take note that federal law requires employers to make exceptions to generally applicable policies and work rules - such as limits on the amount of medical leave an employee may take - when necessary to reasonably accommodate employees with disabilities, unless providing an exception to a particular individual is an undue hardship.”

The EEOC is a federal agency responsible for enforcing federal laws which prohibit employment discrimination, including disability discrimination.  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% in disability charges over the prior fiscal year.  More information about the EEOC is available at www.eeoc.gov .

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) lawyers filed a discrimination lawsuit against a full-service home health care provider, charging that the health care provider violated federal law when it fired an employee because of her disability and because she challenged the company’s failure to accommodate her.  In a Press Release at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/7-14-11.cfm , the EEOC announced filing of the disability discrimination lawsuit in which the EEOC alleges that a registered nurse, who worked as a pediatric case manager, was diagnosed with breast cancer and began treatment in 2009.  According to the EEOC, the employer refused to provide her with reasonable accommodations to enable her to return to work in a pediatric case manager job or an appropriate alternate position, despite her being released to return to work with limited restrictions that were phased out and ultimately eliminated.  As a result of the company’s refusal to reasonably accommodate her, she filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC.  The EEOC said that she was subsequently subjected to adverse employment actions, including termination, in retaliation for her having filed the discrimination charge.

In this regard, the EEOC is a federal agency responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination.  Such alleged misconduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act or ADA.  EEOC lawyers filed the discrimination lawsuit after first attempting to reach a voluntary pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.  The agency seeks injunctive relief and punitive damages as well as lost wages and benefits because of the alleged breast cancer disability discrimination.  An EEOC lawyer quoted in the Press Release stated, in part, as follows:  “Federal law clearly obligates employers to work with disabled employees to determin how best to accommodate them.”     

Whether breast cancer disability discrimination occurs at workplaces in Beaumont, Cuero, Houston or elsewhere, employees subjected to breast cancer disability discrimination may contact the EEOC and a lawyer to determine if a disability discrimination lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the particular circumstances and facts of the potential case.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a federal law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability and the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is a federal agency which enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, including discrimination based upon an employee’s intellectual or mental disabilities.  As discussed by the EEOC, an estimated 2.5 million people in the United States have an intellectual disability - approximately 1% of the United States population.  See, http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/intellectual_disabilities.html .  Estimates also indicate that only 31% of individuals with intellectual disabilities are employed, although many more want to work.  According to the EEOC, persons with intellectual disabilities successfully perform a wide range of jobs, and can be dependable workers.  In addition to having intellectual disabilities, persons with intellectual disabilities may have other impairments as well.  The EEOC identifies examples of coexisting impairments to include conditions such as cerebral palsy, seizure disorders and attention-deficit and hyperactivity disorder or ADHD, among others.

In this regard, the EEOC announced on July 5, 2011 that a retail company charged with disability discrimination agreed to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the EEOC on behalf of a part-time stocker who suffers from cerebral palsy, limited intellectual functioning and a seizure disorder.  In its Press Release at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/7-5-11a.cfm , the EEOC states that the company refused to provide a reasonable accommodation to the employee.  The EEOC’s suit asserted that while the employee succeeded early on with the assistance of a job coach and task reminders, the company later failed to ensure the presence of a job coach during work-related and job performance meetings.  Following a 2004 medical leave of absence due to a seizure, the employee’s work hours were decreased dramatically, sometimes down to only eight hours per week, the EEOC said.  An EEOC attorney was quoted in the Press Release, saying, in part, as follows:  ” … employers must be mindful to treat workers with disabilities fairly and decently and ensure that reasonable accommodation requests are properly carried out.”    

Unfortunately, many employers still exclude persons with intellectual disabilities from the workplace because of persistent, but unfounded myths, fears and stereotypes, and, as the recent case shows, workers with mental disabilities can be subject to workplace discrimination related to their intellectual disabilities. 

Whether employment-related disability discrimination against persons suffering from limited intellectual functioning and coexisting impairments such as cerebral palsy or ADHD occurs in Beaumont, Conroe, Houston or elsewhere, employees may contact the EEOC and an attorney to determine if a charge of disability discrimination and an employment discrimination lawsuit are appropriate under the particular circumstances and facts of the potential mental disability discrimination claim.

An estimated 2.5 million people in the United States have an intellectual disability - approximately 1% of the United States population.  As reported by the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission at http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/intellectual_disabilities.html , estimates also indicate that only 31% of individuals with intellectual disabilities are employed, although many more want to work.  According to the EEOC, an individual is considered to have an intellectual disability when: (1) the person’s intellectual functioning level (IQ) is below 70 - 75; (2) the person has significant limitations in adaptive skill areas as expressed in conceptual, social, and practical adaptive skills; and (3) the disability originated before the age of 18.  “Adaptive skill areas” refers to basic skills needed for every day life, including, for example, communication, self-care, home living, social skills, leisure, health and safety, self-direction, functional academics (reading, writing, basic math), and work. 

Persons with intellectual disabilities successfully perform a wide range of jobs, and, the EEOC says, can be dependable workers, but many employers still exclude persons with intellectual disabilities from the workplace because of persistent, but unfounded myths, fears, and stereotypes.  In this regard, the EEOC reports that some employers believe incorrectly that persons with intellectual disabilities will have higher absentee rates and will cause insurance costs to skyrocket even though studies show that these are misconceptions.

For its own part, the EEOC is a federal agency responsible for enforcing federal laws that prohibit workplace discrimination, including disability discrimination and harassment or retaliation for reporting disability discrimination.  The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is one federal law enforced by the EEOC which prohibits discrimination based upon disability.  While not everyone with an intellectual disability is covered by the ADA, a person with an intellectual disability may meet the ADA’s definition of disability, subjecting an employer to liability for mental disability discrimination. 

In April of 2011, EEOC attorneys filed a federal disability discrimination lawsuit against a company based in Texas, alleging that the Texas company discriminated against employees with mental disabilities by subjecting the employees to verbal and physical harassment while housing them in substandard facilites and denying them lawful wages.  According to the EEOC’s lawsuit against the company, EEOC attorneys contend that the Texas company exploited these workers because their intellectual disabilities made them particularly vulnerable and unaware of the extent to which their legal rights were being denied.  See, http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/4-6-11b.cfm .  More specifically, the EEOC lawsuit asserts that the company failed to pay lawful wages, restricted the employees’ freedom of movement, failed to provide adequate medical care when needed and subjected the employees to vebal abuse which included frequently referring to the workers as retarded and stupid.  An EEOC attorney quoted in the EEOC’s Press Release pertaining to the lawsuit said, in part, as follows: “The victims in this case were subject to a hostile work environment and discriminatory treatment because of their disability.” 

The EEOC lawsuit on behalf of these workers followed an EEOC Commission meeting that explored the issue of discrimination on the basis of mental disabilities.  Following that meeting, the EEOC issued its final regulations interpreting the Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act (ADAA), which simplified the determination of who has a “disability” and made it easier for people to establish that they are protected by the ADA. 

Whether an employee with a mental or intellectual disability is subjected to verbal or physical harassment and unlawful employment discrimination in Texas or elsewhere, the disabled employee may contact the EEOC and an attorney to determine if a charge of disability discrimination and harassment, including a disability discrimination lawsuit, is warranted under the particular facts and circumstances of the potential employment discrimination claim.