Hospital Sued By EEOC for Disability Discrimination

A man with a knee impairment applied for a job as a phlebotomist at a private regional medical center that operates five general hospitals in Charlotte, N.C. and the surrounding area.

In 2009, the applicant received medical clearance to participate in a phlebotomist training program at a community college in Charlotte. As part of the program, he completed a seven-week phlebotomist internship with one of the largest health care institutions in North Carolina.

On completion of the program, he applied for and was offered a permanent position with the company as a phlebotomist, pending a health screening exam. He disclosed the knee impairment during the health screening and provided his related medical records. The employee claimed the company then rescinded its job offer.

After investigating the applicant’s claims, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a lawsuit against the health care company in March 2013. The EEOC alleged the applicant was fully qualified for the position and could perform its duties, but was denied hire simply because the company perceived him to be disabled as a result of his knee injury.

A regional attorney for the EEOC’s Charlotte office said that the EEOC is fully committed to its responsibility to enforce the ADA and combat disability discrimination. Unfortunately, more than 20 years after the enactment of the ADA, too many employers hold impairments against applicants when those impairments don’t inhibit their ability to perform the jobs they seek.

The California law firm of Faunce, Singer and Oatman has successfully handled thousands of cases of employment discrimination and employee harassment.  If you feel you have been harassed, or discriminateed against, please contact Faunce, Singer and Oatman at 1-800-874-2284.

Jane Oatman
Faunce, Singer & Oatman
Fighting for the Rights of Disabled Public Employees
http://www.public-pensions.com
1-800-874-2284

The Supreme Court Decision That Could Change Your Workplace

Most people would love to believe that employee harassment is a thing of the past. It would be wonderful if the behaviors that we see on television shows about the past, such as “Mad Men,” were behaviors that had stayed in the past. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Cases of employee harassment and public employee discrimination are still distressingly prevalent. Recently, the Supreme Court potentially added to the problem, by revising a key point in workplace harassment legislation.

In the case of Vance vs. Ball State University, an African-American dining hall worker filed a lawsuit against Ball State University, alleging that one of her supervisors began racially harassing and intimidating her in 2006. The Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision was to rule that an employee could only hold an organization liable for harassment, if a supervisor carried out the harassment. At the same time, they narrowed the legal definition of supervisor, to only those people who have the power to hire, fire, or “effect significant change in an employee’s status”.

This ruling, which has gotten very little press, has the potential to create an incredible number of problems, and it will be interesting to see how it affects employee harassment cases moving forward.

Jane Oatman
Faunce, Singer & Oatman
Fighting for the Rights of Disabled Public Employees

www.public-pensions.com