CLOSE X
RSS Feed LinkedIn Instagram Twitter Facebook
Search:
FMG Law Blog Line

Posts Tagged ‘ADA’

COVID-19: What Medical Inquiries Can Employers Make?

Posted on: March 16th, 2020

By: Jennifer Markowski

Last week, Brad Adler, addressed FAQ’s (and Answers) for Employers Dealing with the Coronavirus, COVID-19. Subsequent to that article, on March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization (“WHO”) declared COVID-19 a pandemic. Consequently, employers should follow the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (“EEOC”) pandemic guidance “Pandemic Preparedness in the Workplace and the ADA,” which details what medical inquiries and testing are permissible in the workplace in light of the existing pandemic.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) prohibits employers from making disability-related inquiries and/or requiring employees to submit to medical examinations unless they are job-related and consistent with business necessity.  Now that COVID-19 has been declared a pandemic, according to the EEOC guidance, employers can do the following without running afoul of the ADA:

  • Send employees home who are exhibiting COVID-19 symptoms;
  • Ask employees who call-in sick whether they are experiencing fever or chills and a cough or sore throat (symptoms of COVID-19);
  • Measure employee temperatures, if COVID-19 is widespread in the community as defined by state or local health ordinances or the CDC;
  • Ask where employees have traveled;
  • Ask why employees have not reported to work (this is always permissible);
  • Implement measures to prevent infection, such as wearing masks or requiring teleworking.

As always, information obtained about an employee’s medical illness must be kept confidential and separate from the employee’s personnel file and can only be shared with individuals on a need to know basis.  Additionally, if an employee receives ADA accommodations in the workplace and is then required to telework, those same accommodations should be provided for in the telework space, unless doing so would create an undue hardship.

The Occupational Safety and Health Organization (“OSHA”) has also issued guidance for pandemic preparedness. Those guidelines are accessible here.

In addition, FMG has formed a Coronavirus Task Force to provide up-to-the-minute information, strategic advice, and practical solutions for our clients. Our group is an interdisciplinary team of attorneys who can address the multitude of legal issues arising out of the coronavirus pandemic, including issues related to Healthcare, Product Liability, Tort Liability, Data Privacy, and Cyber and Local Governments. For more information about the Task Force, click here.

You can also contact your FMG relationship partner or email the team with any questions at [email protected].

Current Legal Issues Facing Supportive Housing Facilities

Posted on: December 2nd, 2019

By: Joseph Colette

FMG Partner H. Joseph Colette discussed “Current Legal Issues Facing Supportive Housing Facilities” at the Georgia Supportive Housing Association’s 9th Annual Supportive Housing Conference, held at the State Bar of Georgia from November 18th to 19th.

Supportive housing provides at-risk populations, including individuals with physical, mental, or developmental disabilities, veterans, and reentry individuals, with stable housing with needed support services, such as case management, housing, and reasonable accommodations, peer supports, education, training, and other services. Mr. Colette originally assisted the Georgia Supportive Housing Association (“GSHA”) in obtaining its non-profit 501(c)(3) status. The GSHA is a membership network of non-profit housing developers, service providers, statewide agencies and organizations, corporations, associations and individuals with a shared goal: strengthening housing resources in the State of Georgia. The vision of the GSHA is to have a Georgia where individuals with disabilities can choose the housing and supports they need to thrive, obtaining and ensuring their stability, autonomy, and dignity.

Mr. Colette’s presentation included a historical overview of the Fair Housing Act of 1968, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Olmstead v. L.C. Mr. Colette also discussed the evolution of these civil rights laws and insight into the variations in federal and statewide implementation and enforcement activity on the 20th anniversary of the Olmstead decision.

The Fair Housing Act of 1968 (“FHA”), which applies to landlords, realtors, mortgage brokers, insurance agents, zoning codes, etc., prohibits the discrimination in the rental, sale, advertising, design, insuring, and financing of dwellings, and in other housing-related transactions, based on membership in protected classes. The protected classes originally included: race, color, financial status, religion, sex/gender, and national origin. The FHA was amended in 1988 (see the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (“FHAA”)) to include disability as a protected seventh protected class.

Reasonable accommodations and modifications were also newly-established legal requirements of the FHA. A landlord could not unreasonably refuse to provide a reasonable accommodation of a rule, policy, or procedure to address the needs of a person with a disability, and could not unreasonably deny permission to a tenant to make a modification of the premises to address the needs of a person with a disability. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which imposes greater obligations than the FHA,  prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in any program or activity that receives federal funds. The language of both the later enacted FHAA and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”) are rooted in the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Section 504 also requires recipients to make reasonable accommodations, including structural changes, to enable access to housing for people with disabilities.

The ADA provides federal civil rights protections to individuals with physical and mental disabilities and guarantees them equal opportunity in public accommodations, employment, transportation, state and local government services, and telecommunications. The integration of individuals with disabilities into the mainstream of society is fundamental to the purposes of the ADA. Title II of the ADA prohibits discrimination by public entities in services, programs, and activities on the basis of disability, and applies to all types of state agencies, counties, municipalities and cities, and executive, legislative, and judicial branches of state and local government.

The passage of the ADA resulted in a myriad of discrimination lawsuits, many of which went before the U.S. Supreme Court. For resolution of these cases, the Court was required to interpret the broad anti-discrimination provisions of the ADA in a variety of specific contexts while at the same time balancing such questions as states’ rights and the definition of disability. One such case was Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999).

In Olmstead, the Supreme Court determined that individuals with disabilities had the right to receive supports in the community rather than in institutions when three conditions were met:

1) The treating medical professionals determined that a community setting was appropriate;

2) The person with a disability did not object to living in the community; and

3) The provision of services in the community was a reasonable accommodation.

All states were required to take steps necessary to serve individuals with disabilities in the community when the aforementioned conditions were met.

Virtually all of the cases after Olmstead involved attempts to place people from individual institutions into the community. The major legal controversies raised by these cases involved interpretation of what is referred to as the “fundamental alteration” defense. A public entity’s obligation under Olmstead to provide services in the most integrated setting is not unlimited.  Therefore, a public entity may be excused in instances where it can prove that the requested modification would result in a “fundamental alteration” of the public entity’s service system.  A fundamental alteration requires the public entity to prove “that, in the allocation of available resources, immediate relief for plaintiffs would be inequitable, given the responsibility the State [or local government] has taken for the care and treatment of a large and diverse population of persons with…disabilities.” See Olmstead, 527 U.S. at 604.

If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Joseph Colette at [email protected].

A Dog Walks Into a Bar with its Owner: Service Animals Welcome Accessories Please Leave at the Door

Posted on: October 9th, 2019

By: David Molinari

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) provides people with disabilities equal access to employment, state and local government programs and goods and services.  Businesses open to the public including hospitality venues must comply with the ADA and are prohibited from discriminating against individuals with disabilities.  The ADA requires businesses (hospitality establishments) open to the public allow individuals to bring in their service animals even if the establishment has a “no pet” policy.

A trend encountered in the hospitality industry is clientele demanding the venue accommodate their pet who does not meet the requirements of a “service animal.”  Staff is often faced with an immediate decision that has rippling consequences; a possible violation of the ADA resulting in civil penalties, possible damages and an award of the opposing party’s attorney’s fees.

A service animal is any dog that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability; including a physical, sensory, psychiatric, intellectual or other mental disability.  Service animals are working animals.  They are not pets.

Customers often blur the line with animals that provide emotional support, companionship or comfort.  These are not considered service animals because the animal does not perform a specific task associated with an individual’s disability.

The task performed by a service animal must be directly related to the disability of the person handling the animal.  Such tasks include, but are not limited to: guiding a person who is blind or has low vision, alerting a person with hearing loss, picking up or retrieving objects, alerting individuals to the presence of allergens, providing physical support or assistance with balance, assisting a person with psychiatric disabilities by interrupting impulsive behaviors.

For frontline staff dealing with customers in the hospitality industry, staff may not be able to immediately recognize a disability that is not obvious.  Therefore, staff should be trained to ask two questions: first, is the animal a service animal; and second, what task has the animal been trained to perform?

The hospitality venue and staff must refrain from asking about the nature or extent of the person’s disability, requesting the handler demonstrate the service animal’s task or requiring documentation proving the animal has been certified, trained or licensed.

A service animal must always be under the handler’s control.  Service animals must have harness, leash or other tether unless the handler’s disability prohibits such use or the animals’ task is adversely impacted by the use of a harness, leash or tether.

The hospitality venue must keep in mind that a service animal is a working animal; not a pet.  The staff must refrain from distractive actions around a service animal such as attempting to pet, feed or distract the animal.  Under no circumstances should the venue attempt to extract an extra fee or surcharge from a customer with a service animal.  This includes hotels that require a deposit for customers with pets, as well as restaurants, bars or other hospitality venues.

If a service animal is disruptive, threatening or not housebroken, the venue may ask the handler to remove the animal.  The venue must allow the individual with the disability the option of returning to the establishment without the animal.  Other customers who may have allergies or fears of dogs is not a valid reason for denying access to a disabled individual with a service animal.  The venue must try to separate the person with the allergy or other aversion from the disabled person with a service animal.

If further information is needed, please feel free to contact me at [email protected]; (619) 687-3000.

Is Your Attendance Policy Too Rigid?

Posted on: September 6th, 2018

By: Christopher Curci

Employers need to be mindful of both the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) and Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) when considering how to enforce their attendance policies.  When an employee requests time off from work to attend to a medical condition, most employers will consider the request as one for medical leave under the FMLA.  However, what happens if the employee has exhausted his or her FMLA leave or is not eligible for FMLA leave.  Many employers will simply conclude that the employee is not eligible for FMLA leave without considering whether the ADA requires the leave as a reasonable accommodation.  This common mistake often results in a violation of the ADA.

For example, in August 2018 the EEOC filed a lawsuit against Stanley Black & Decker for terminating an employee who took leave for medical treatments related to her cancer.  To qualify for FMLA leave, the employee must have been employed with the company for at least one year and worked at least 1,250 hours during the prior year.  In the Stanley Black & Decker lawsuit, the employee requesting leave had been employed for less than one year.  When she asked Human Resources what her options were to receive her medical treatments, she was correctly told that she was not eligible for FMLA leave.  However, Human Resources did not consider whether the requested leave was a reasonable accommodation under the ADA.

What happened?  The employee exceeded her allowed vacation days to undergo her cancer treatments and Stanley Black & Decker terminated her employment for excessive absenteeism in violation of its attendance policy.  Then what happened?  The EEOC filed a lawsuit against Stanley Black & Decker for violating the ADA.

Per the EEOC, Stanley Black & Decker’s attendance policy “does not provide exceptions for people who need leave as an accommodation to their disability.”  EEOC Regional Attorney Debra M. Lawrence said, “Employers can run afoul of the ADA if they have a rigid attendance policy that penalizes employees taking leave as a reasonable accommodation for their disabilities.”

Inflexible leave policies that discriminate against individuals with disabilities is one of six national priorities identified by the EEOC’s Strategic Enforcement Plan.  The take away: when an employee requests leave due to a medical condition, employers must consider both the FMLA’s leave requirements and the ADA’s reasonable accommodation requirements.

Christopher Curci practices Labor & Employment law in Pennsylvania and New Jersey and is a member of  Freeman Mathis & Gary’s Labor and Employment Law National Practice Section.  He represents employers in litigation and advises clients on all aspects of employment law.  He can be reached at [email protected].

 

Discrimination Suit Over Service Dog Revived By Third Circuit

Posted on: August 23rd, 2018

By: Barry Brownstein

The Third Circuit has revived a lawsuit by the parents of an epileptic girl who claim a Pennsylvania school discriminated against her by barring her service dog.

In 2014, Traci and Joseph Berardelli sued the Allied Services Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, which operates a school with a specialized program for dyslexic students, after it barred their daughter from bringing her service dog to school to help alert staff to her epileptic seizures. The school claimed the dog would be a distraction, and the Berardelli’s daughter missed many school days when her seizures were bad. When the school finally permitted the service dog to accompany her, the reprieve did not last long, as school officials required that it wear a “special therapeutic shirt designed to decrease allergens” that caused the dog to overheat. The parents’ lawsuit alleged that the school violated the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and a Pennsylvania discrimination law.

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania dismissed the ADA and state discrimination claims, ruling that they improperly sought damages.

On appeal, Traci and Joseph Berardelli argued that “reasonable modifications” required under the ADA are substantively the same as “reasonable accommodations” provided for in the Rehabilitation Act, and thus, service animal requirements in the ADA apply to both laws.

The Third Circuit ruled that the district court erred in its instructions to the jury about the Rehabilitation Act claim and improperly disallowed testimony about ADA service animal regulations because that was not the law being considered.  In its enforcement of the ADA, the Department of Justice has ruled that service animals are reasonably permitted to be used by disabled persons in public places as long as they are housebroken, not out of control, and pose no risk to the public.

The Third Circuit ruled that the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and its progeny the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 must be interpreted the same way with respect to reasonable accommodations that must be provided to those with disabilities, including the use of service animals. Thus, under the Rehabilitation Act just as under the ADA, a covered actor ordinarily must accommodate the use of service animals by individuals with disabilities. The Third Circuit also overturned dismissal of the claim made under Pennsylvania discrimination law, ruling that the district court erred because that law does permit damages as a remedy.

If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Barry Brownstein at [email protected].