1 / 39

EEOC Update: ADA & GINA Wellness Incentives Rescinded

Stay informed on recent changes in ADA and GINA regulations regarding wellness program incentives. Learn about EEOC updates, case resolutions, and employer responsibilities under the ADA.

jpollack
Download Presentation

EEOC Update: ADA & GINA Wellness Incentives Rescinded

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 2019 ADA Update • Jeanne Goldberg • Senior Attorney-Advisor • Office of Legal Counsel • U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

  2. Commission News

  3. NEW CHAIR & EEOC QUORUM RESTORED • Janet Dhillon sworn in May 15, 2019 as EEOC Chair, restoring quorum. • Joins Commissioners Victoria A. Lipnic, who had served as Acting Chair since January 2017, and Charlotte Burrows  • Chair Dhillon previously practiced law in the private sector for over 25 years: • Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary of Burlington Stores, Inc. • Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary of JC Penney Company, Inc. • Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer of US Airways Group, Inc. • Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

  4. Status: Rescission of Incentives Provisions – ADA and GINA Rules on Employer Wellness Programs • EEOC issued ADA and GINA regulations in 2016 addressing the financial incentives that could be offered for employees and their spouses to provide current or past health status information as part of employer wellness programs. • AARP challenged, and federal court vacated the incentives sections effective January 1, 2019. AARP v. EEOC, No. 16-2113 (D.D.C. Dec. 20, 2017). • To comply with the court’s order, EEOC rescinded those sections on Dec. 20, 2018. • The non-incentives portions of the regulations relating to wellness programs remain in effect.

  5. Status: Rescission of Incentives Provisions – ADA and GINA Rules on Employer Wellness Programs • Non-incentives portions of the regulations relating to wellness programs that collect health information remain in effect, for example: • program must be reasonably designed to promote health or prevent disease  • health information collected subject to confidentiality protections  • employers must provide ADA notice about how information collected will be used and protected from disclosure  • participation must be voluntary -- cannot require/coerce participation or take adverse actions/retaliate/harass for non-participation

  6. Updates, News, and Information From EEOC • EEOC Press Releases • https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/index.cfm • EEOC FY 2018 Performance and Accountability Report • https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/plan/upload/2018par.pdf

  7. ADA Case Update

  8. Is Your Online Application Process Accessible? • EEOC v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Texas, Civil Action No.3:17-CV-02626-D (N.D. Tex. consent decree entered March 2019), https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/03-19-19.cfm. • Based on resume, applicant invited to complete online assessment that included audio portion • Unable to complete because no captions or other visible accommodations for applicants with hearing impairments • Contacted company to request accommodation • Company stopped communicating with her notwithstanding her repeated attempts to follow up with human resources staff • Resolution: $75,000, annual ADA training, informing applicants and employees of ADA rights, including reasonable accommodation, and implementation of policy for communicating with applicants who are deaf or hard of hearing to ensure they can apply for open positions without barriers in application process

  9. Are you ADA-compliant when assessing medical information obtained in post-offer or fitness for duty exams? • Beware of assumptions about impairments • Make individualized assessments based on actual limitations, work history, and current ability to perform functions with accommodation • Don’t rescind job offer based on an impairment learned about in post-offer/pre-employment medical exam/inquiries if individual is qualified and does not pose a direct threat to safety

  10. Are you ADA-compliant when assessing medical information obtained in post-offer or fitness for duty exams? • Pre-litigation EEOC Settlement of Charge with Cumbres & Toltec Scenic Railroad (Aug. 2018), https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/8-21-18.cfm.Charge alleged employer rescinded offer to qualified applicant for brakeman position based on his disability without individualized assessment of whether he could perform the essential functions. Settlement included financial relief, policy changes, and training. • EEOC v. Zachry Industrial, Inc., 1:18-cv-58-HSO-JCG (S.D. Miss. consent decree entered July 2018), https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/7-26-18a.cfm.EEOC alleged a construction and industrial contractor violated the ADA by terminating four employees because an occupational health exam revealed they had disabilities, without conducting an individualized assessment and despite their adequate work performance. Settlement of $135,000 and other relief.

  11. Do Your Hiring Officials, HR Staff, Managers, and Supervisors Know that Accommodation May Be Requested at Any Time? • EEOC v. Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-04017-ELR-JSA (N.D. Ga. consent decree entered July 2018), https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/7-3-18a.cfm. • $82,500 settlement of claim that employer violated ADA by rescinding job offer to applicant who had accepted offer and then disclosed her disability after HR reached out to discuss her new position.

  12. Do Your Hiring Officials, HR Staff, Managers, and Supervisors Know How to Accommodate Applicants with Hearing Impairments? • EEOC v. USA Parking, Civil Action No. 18-23984 (S.D. Fla. consent decree entered Feb. 2019), https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/2-27-19.cfm.EEOC alleged parking valet service refused to hire applicant because of hearing impairment. Settlement of $150,000 included training and affirmative recruitment of hearing impaired applicants and revised written position qualifications making clear effective communication with customers could be verbal or written • EEOC v. Jacksons Food Stores, Inc., Case No. 2:17-CV-01285 (W.D. Wash. consent decree entered Sept. 2018), https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/9-7-18a.cfm.EEOC alleged chain convenience store manager refused to interview applicant once he explained he was deaf and would need sign language interpreter for interview, even though his online application had resulted in his being selected for interview based on his qualifications and experience working in similar jobs. Settlement of $88,000 and other relief pursuant to a 5-year consent decree. 

  13. Do Your Hiring Officials, HR Staff, Managers, and Supervisors Know How to Accommodate Applicants with Hearing Impairments? • EEOC v. Capstone Logistics, LLC, Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-01980 (D. Md. consent decree entered April 2018), https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/4-6-18.cfm. • EEOC alleged after site manager told deaf applicant for warehouse they would reschedule job interview so that human resources and an interpreter could be present, company never rescheduled. Manager instead sent applicant text message saying, “…we have determined that there is no job that we can offer that would be safe for you....” • EEOC alleged applicant was never asked about his ability to perform any of the essential functions of warehouse position, with or without reasonable accommodation. Settlement of $50,000 and other relief pursuant to a 3-year consent decree.

  14. Do Your Hiring Officials, HR Staff, Managers, and Supervisors Know How to Accommodate Employees with Hearing Impairments? • EEOC v. AT&T Pacific Bell Telephone Company, Case No. 1:17-cv-01059-LJO-EPG (E.D. Cal. consent decree entered July 2018), https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/7-12-18a.cfm.EEOC alleged that despite numerous requests for a sign language interpreter, managers chose instead to stand close to employee during meetings so he could read their lips, or to jot down notes explaining meeting after the fact. Settlement of $15,000 and other relief pursuant to a 2-year consent decree.

  15. Do Your Hiring Officials, HR Staff, Managers, and Supervisors Know How to Accommodate Employees with Hearing Impairments? • Stokes v. Nielsen, 2018 WL 4859088 (5th Cir. Oct. 4, 2018). Employee with vision impairment brought denial of accommodation claim against the Department of Homeland Security for failing to provide her with meeting materials either in large font that she could use at the meeting, or electronically in advance so that she could review them before the meeting using her assistive technology. Summary judgment for employer denied. • Court rejected DHS’s argument that it was only required to provide reasonable accommodations needed for plaintiff to perform essential functions. Participating in the meeting with the benefit of the same materials others had could be viewed as accommodation to enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment. Receiving materials after the meeting was not effective. She did not waive her right to an effective accommodation for on-site meetings simply because she accepted inferior accommodations for offsite meetings when advance materials may not have been feasible. • See also Cadoret v. Sikorsky Aircraft Corp., 2018 WL 806548 (D. Conn. Feb. 9, 2018) (employer violated ADA during period it provided ineffective solutions such as text-to-speech software, written materials, or a one-on-one meeting after the larger meeting; later complied with ADA when it began providing interpreter or using VRI for employee meetings and trainings).

  16. JAN Resources • Accommodation and Compliance Series: Hearing Impairment • https://askjan.org/disabilities/Hearing-Impairment.cfm • Focus on Effective Workplace Accommodations for Employees with Hearing Impairments • https://askjan.org/blogs/jan/2014/10/focus-on-effective-workplace-accommodations-for-employees-with-hearing-impairments.cfm • Accommodation Scenarios for the Interviewing Process • https://askjan.org/publications/consultants-corner/vol01iss01.cfm

  17. Are Your Front-Line Supervisors Aware That Workplace Modifications May Be Required as a Reasonable Accommodation? • EEOC v. Grand Hyatt New York, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:18-CV-07374) (S.D.N.Y. consent decree entered May 2019), https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/5-30-19.cfm.   • Hotel front desk agent whose back impairment caused severe pain if prolonged standing requested to sit on chair while working at front desk. Hotel initially granted that request, then after two weeks reversed course, refusing to let the employee use chair and otherwise failing to accommodate his disability. Settlement of $85,000 plus approx. $15,000 worth of paid leave.

  18. Are Your Front-Line Supervisors Aware That Workplace Modifications May Be Required as a Reasonable Accommodation? • EEOC v. Merritt Hospitality, LLC, and HEI Hotels and Resorts, LLC, Civ. Action No. 18cv654 (S.D. Cal. consent decree entered Nov. 2018), https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/11-29-18.cfm. • Asthma/respiratory conditions of hotel conference/catering sales manager aggravated when assigned to windowless room with inadequate ventilation and broken air conditioner. • After first day, told supervisor that lack of ventilation was making her sick due to chronic health condition. • Supervisor said she did not know if air conditioner would be fixed, & questioned why employee had problem when no one else did. Employee further explained, provided dr.’s note, & continued to seek accommodation. Employer said could not accommodate and asked for resignation letter. • Settlement of $125,000 and other relief pursuant to 5-year consent decree.

  19. Are Your Front-Line Supervisors Aware That Workplace Modifications May Be Required as a Reasonable Accommodation? • EEOC v. InsideUp, Inc., Case No.: 3:17-cv-01961-CAB-JMA (S.D. Cal. consent decree entered Feb. 2018), https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/2-20-18.cfm. • EEOC alleged employer violated ADA by refusing to accommodate an employee with COPD who requested transfer to a first-floor office of the non-elevator building because of his difficulty climbing the stairs due to his respiratory impairment. Settlement of $10,500 and other relief.

  20. Are You Engaging in a Fact-Specific Determination of Whether There is a Reasonable Accommodation? • Gardea v. JBS USA, L.L.C., 915 F.3d 537 (8th Cir. 2019). Held: Lift-assisting devices were not a reasonable accommodation for maintenance mechanic who had lifting restrictions because of carpal tunnel syndrome in right wrist: • Devices needed would require overhead beams not present in all areas of plant, and would be impractical in plant’s tight quarters • Plaintiff could not lift objects such as ladders and machinery onto devices, and ADA does not require employer to have others assist with it since lifting these objects was essential function of job, and in any event certain areas were too small for two mechanics, and other mechanics would not necessarily have been available • Dunlap v. Liberty Natural Products, Inc., 878 F.3d 794 (9th Cir. 2017). Denying employer’s appeal from the district court’s denial of its post-trial motions, 2015 WL 1778477 (D. Or. 2015), the Ninth Circuit upheld the jury’s verdict in favor of a shipping clerk who was denied accommodation of her lifting, pushing, and pulling restrictions: • Qualified because she could have performed essential function of moving boxes from point A to point B -- notwithstanding her restrictions -- if employer had allowed her to use a rolling cart or other assistive device (manual or motorized) as an accommodation • Carts already onsite could have been used, or affordable manual or motorized lifting devices (such as a scissor lift table) advertised in catalogues employer regularly received

  21. Are You Engaging in a Meaningful Interactive Process? • Brunckhorst v. Oak Park Heights, 914 F.3d 1177 (8th Cir. 2019). • Senior Accountant contracted “flesh-eating” bacteria, was left with long-term injuries. After his FMLA leave expired, employer extended his leave of absence at least three times under ADA and several times asked about reasonable accommodations that might enable a return to work. During this period, his job was eliminated; he was given choice between severance package or reassignment to the only available vacancy, which was a lower level position • Employee refused to return unless given original job • City explained options were return to reassignment or be terminated, asked for a list of any reasonable accommodations needed to perform the new job, and extended offer to meet with staff to discuss • Employee failed to meet or return to work, and was lawfully terminated • Held: Employer engaged in good faith interactive process, making various attempts to learn about possible accommodations and respond with appropriate ones that would enable return to work within employee’s medical restrictions.

  22. Are You Engaging in a Meaningful Interactive Process? • Faidley v. United Parcel Serv. of Am., Inc., 889 F.3d 933 (8th Cir. 2018) (en banc). • In both 2012 and 2013, Faidley submitted doctor’s letters noting work restrictions. In both instances: • UPS met with him to find appropriate accommodations • after correctly determining there were no reasonable accommodations that would have permitted him to perform the essential functions of his current job, UPS identified several possible types of jobs that he could perform within his medical restrictions, and looked to see if any of those jobs were vacant so he could be reassigned • those jobs had no full-time vacancies or he lacked seniority to bid on them, so instead company offered him vacant part-time job for which he was qualified, but he declined • Held: in both years, company engaged in good faith in the interactive process with the employee to find reasonable accommodations

  23. Performance Issues Caused By Unlawful Denial of Accommodation? • General performance/conduct rule: Employer never has to lower production or performance standards as an accommodation, or excuse violations of uniformly applied conduct rules that are job-related and consistent with business necessity, even if a disability caused the performance or conduct issue. See, e.g., Guzman v. Brown Cty., 884 F.3d 633 (7th Cir. 2018) (even if employee had given her doctor’s letter to management requesting reasonable accommodation before they informed her she would be terminated for tardiness, she could still have been fired because her misconduct had already occurred; reasonable accommodation does not include excusing prior misconduct). • However, a different result obtains where an employer’s improper denial of accommodation caused the performance or conduct issue.

  24. Performance Issues Caused By Improper Denial of Accommodation? • EEOC v. The Cheesecake Factory, Inc. and The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc., 2:16-CV- 1942-JLR (W.D. Wash. consent decree entered February 2018), https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/2-1-18b.cfm. • EEOC alleged restaurant fired newly hired dishwasher who is deaf for performance issues associated with failure to provide accessible training • Settlement of $15,000 and other relief, including a commitment to provide closed captioning for the training and orientation videos that are required viewing for new hires, ensuring accessible training on how to clock in for his shifts and how to use the online scheduling system • Note ADA rule regarding performance issues associated with denial of reasonable accommodation…

  25. Performance Issues Caused By Improper Denial of Accommodation? • EEOC v. Dolgencorp, LLC, 899 F.3d 428 (6th Cir. 2018). Cashier with diabetes was denied request to keep juice at register, then was terminated for violating pay-first policy during hypoglycemic symptoms. EEOC argued employer violated ADA by not making exception to register policy or offering alternative accommodation; jury awarded approx. $278,000 to employee. Upholding jury verdict on appeal, court held: • “[A] company may not illegitimately deny an employee a reasonable accommodation to a general policy and use that same policy as a neutral basis for firing him. Imagine a school that lacked an elevator to accommodate a teacher with mobility problems. It could not refuse to assign him to classrooms on the first floor, then turn around and fire him for being late to class after he took too long to climb the stairs between periods. In the same way, Atkins never would have had a reason to buy the store’s orange juice during a medical emergency if Dollar General had allowed her to keep her own orange juice at the register or worked with her to find another solution.”

  26. 100% Healed Policies • Pre-litigation EEOC Settlement with The Cato Corporation (Dec. 2018), https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/12-10-18.cfm.Systemic EEOC investigation conducted by Chicago and Philadelphia offices found denial of accommodations to certain pregnant employees or those with disabilities, requiring certain employees take unpaid leaves of absence or terminating them rather than allowing return to work with restrictions that could be accommodated. Settlement agreement provided for a claims process to distribute the $3.5 million to Cato employees who were terminated due to their pregnancy or disabilities, as well as revised policies for considering whether medical restrictions of its pregnant employees or those with disabilities can be reasonably accommodated, training, and periodically reporting to EEOC for three years on responses to requests for reasonable accommodation. • EEOC v. Wilmington Trust Corp., Civil Action No. 17-cv-05077 (S.D.N.Y. consent decree entered Dec. 19, 2018), https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/12-19-18a.cfm. EEOC alleged that company had a long-standing inflexible policy and practice of placing employees with impairments or disabilities on involuntary leave unless or until it received their medical provider's clearance to return to work with no restrictions. This practice resulted in denying qualified individuals with disabilities reasonable accommodations, as well as placing qualified individuals with disabilities on involuntary leave and/or discharging them because of disability. Consent decree provided for payment of $700,000, policy changes, training, and other relief.

  27. 100% Healed Policies • EEOC v. Absolut Facilities Management, L.L.C., Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-0102 (W.D.N.Y. consent decree entered Oct. 2018), https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/10-22-18a.cfm. EEOC alleged company’s nursing and health care facilities failed to accommodate workers with disabilities; denied leave as a reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities; refused to allow employees with disabilities to return to work unless they could do so without medical restrictions; and subjected employees to impermissible disability-related inquiries and medical examinations. Consent decree provided for payment of $465,000, policy changes, training, and other relief.

  28. Exception to “No Fault” Maximum Leave Policies if the Additional Leave Needed is Disability-Related and Does Not Pose an Undue Hardship • EEOC v. Kessinger Hunter Mgt. Co., Inc., No. 4:17-cv-803-HFS (W.D. Mo. consent decree entered Aug. 2018), https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/8-31-18.cfm. EEOC alleged that the employer refused to grant additional week of unpaid leave to recover from surgery after employer’s maximum 30-day leave policy, where no undue hardship posed. Consent decree provides for $50,000 in monetary relief, training, and other relief. • EEOC conciliation Agreement with Coca-Cola Refreshments USA, Inc., https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/8-23-18.cfm ($2.25 million resolution; revision of no-fault leave policy; training). 

  29. Pregnancy-Related Limitations That Raise Both ADA and PDA Issues • Hostettler v. College of Wooster, 895 F.3d 844 (6th Cir. 2018).  College employee diagnosed with postpartum depression and separation anxiety, alleged pregnancy and disability discrimination when she was terminated for her inability to return to a full-time schedule after a period of maternity leave and then several months of part-time work to accommodate her impairments.  • Held: • Employer failed to show full-time schedule was essential function of job, so she might have been qualified under ADA even if restricted to part-time schedule because she accomplished full-time workload. • Jury could also find motivation for termination was pregnancy in violation of Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA). Evidence showed employer had extended longer periods of medical leave to two employees for non-pregnancy-related conditions, creating a factual dispute as to whether the employer’s proffered explanation was a pretext.

  30. Pregnancy-Related Limitations That Raise ADA and PDA Issues • EEOC Conciliation Agreement with The Cato Corporation (Dec. 10, 2018), https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/12-10-18.cfm. • Retailer agreed to pay $3.5 million to resolve nationwide, systemic investigation finding denial of reasonable accommodations to pregnant employees or those with disabilities. • Instead of accommodation, employer required employees take unpaid leaves of absence, and/or terminated them. • Company agreed to revise policies to more fully consider whether medical restrictions of pregnant employees or those with disabilities can be reasonably accommodated, conduct companywide training for over 10,000 employees, and report to EEOC periodically for three years on its responses to accommodation requests by pregnant employees or those with disabilities.

  31. Recap: Both ADA and PDA Potentially Apply to Pregnant Employees • Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)/Rehabilitation Act: • pregnancy itself is not an impairment, but apregnancy-related medical condition is an impairment • if pregnancy-related medical condition substantially limits major life activity, entitled to reasonable accommodation if needed, unless undue hardship • Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) (amends Title VII to prohibit pregnancy discrimination as a form of sex discrimination): 1) Prohibits discrimination based on pregnancy (current, past, or potential), childbirth, or related medical conditions • e.g., non-hire or termination because pregnant 2) Requires pregnant employees be treated in same manner as others who are similar in their ability or inability to work • i.e., pregnant employee may be entitled to accommodation for either pregnancy or pregnancy-related limitations under the PDA if the employer gives accommodations to employees who have similar limitations not caused by pregnancy (per U.S. Supreme Court decision in Young v. UPS, 2015)

  32. Association with an Individual with a Disability • EEOC v. Camber Corporation,  Case No. 1:17-cv-01084-AJT JFA (E.D. Va. consent decree entered July 2018), https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/7-2-18a.cfm. • EEOC alleged employer immediately terminated employee on pretextual grounds because he sought transfer to different location to be closer to his disabled son and leave to participate in his care. • Although employees are not entitled to ADA accommodation based on needs of a child or parent with a disability, they are protected from disparate treatment. • Two-year, $100,000 consent decree. • Q & A About the Association Provision of the ADA, https://www.eeoc.gov/facts/association_ada.html.

  33. When is a Fitness for Duty Exam Allowed? • EEOC v. McLeod Health, Inc., 914 F.3d 876 (4th Cir. 2019). • Company’s newsletter editor order to undergo functional-capacity exam after several workplace falls. Exam resulted in recommended restrictions such as not traveling more than 10 miles from the main office, using a motorized scooter, and being provided accessible parking. • Company said these restrictions would prevent her from returning to her job, and that she could apply for other positions in company; placed on involuntary medical leave and eventually terminated. • Held: reasonable jury could find employer lacked required basis for sending her to the exam (a reasonable belief based on objective evidence that the employee’s medical condition may render her unable to perform an essential function or pose a direct threat to safety of herself or others). • Reasonable jury could conclude she could still perform her job whether or not traveling to multiple company campuses was an essential function, and could also conclude it was not reasonable to believe she posed a direct threat simply because she had fallen multiple times recently and her manager thought she looked groggy and out of breath.

  34. Prescribed Opioids, Drugs to Treat Opioid Addiction, or Other Legal Use Under Federal Law • ADA does not protect marijuana use even where legal under state law. ADA does protect disability-related use of drugs if legal under federal law. • Voss v. Housing Authority of the City of Magnolia, Arkansas, 917 F.3d 618 (8th Cir. 2019). • Employer did not violate ADA when it placed employee on paid suspension following positive drug test for opiates/morphine in order to obtain letter from his treating physician to determine that he did not pose a direct threat to safety due to his prescribed hydrocodone. • Breaux v. Bollinger Shipyards, LLC, 2018 WL 3329059 (E.D. La. July 5, 2018). • Employer may have violated ADA by terminating employee, a welder, due to his taking Suboxone prescribed to aid in withdrawing from dependency on prescribed opioid painkillers; question of fact for jury whether employee posed a direct threat to safety.

  35. Is Obesity a Disability, and If So, How Can it Be Accommodated? • Richardson v. Chicago Transit Authority, 2019 WL 2442786 (7th Cir. June 12, 2019). Held: extreme obesity is a physical impairment under the ADA only if it is the result of a separate underlying physiological condition • EEOC’s position: “morbid obesity” itself is an impairment, even absent a separate underlying physiological condition, see, e.g., https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/4-10-12a.cfm • JAN ideas for accommodating employees with obesity: • https://askjan.org/disabilities/Obesity.cfm

  36. Resources: Disability Accommodation • Enforcement Guidance: Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship Under the ADA • www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/accommodation.html • Employer-Provided Leave and the Americans with Disabilities Act • www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/publications/ada-leave.cfm • Work at Home/Telework as a Reasonable Accommodation • www.eeoc.gov/facts/telework.html • The ADA: Applying Performance and Conduct Standards to Employees with Disabilities • www.eeoc.gov/facts/performance-conduct.html • Job Accommodation Network: www.askjan.org

  37. Resources: Pregnancy and EEO Laws • Legal Rights for Pregnant Workers Under Federal Law • www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/publications/pregnant_workers.cfm • EEOC Enforcement Guidance on Pregnancy Discrimination and Related Issues • www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/pregnancy_guidance.cfm • Fact Sheet for Small Businesses: Pregnancy Discrimination • www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/publications/pregnancy_factsheet.cfm • Helping Patients Deal with Pregnancy-Related Limitations and Restrictions at Work www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/publications/pregnancy_health_providers.cfm

  38. Resources on Service Animals and the ADA Employment: • JAN publication: • Service Animals in the Workplace • https://askjan.org/topics/servanim.cfm Non-Employment (State/Local Government Programs and Public Accommodations): • DOJ publications: • Service Animals • https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm • Frequently Asked Questions About Service Animals and the ADA • https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/service_animal_qa.html

  39. Questions? Jeanne GoldbergSenior Attorney AdvisorOffice of Legal CounselU.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission131 M Street, NEWashington, DC 20507(202) 663-4693jeanne.goldberg@eeoc.gov

More Related