In the past year, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has seen 7.2 % in discrimination claims being filed with agency.  Coverage here.  The EEOC handles charges under Title VII, the ADA, the ADEA, the Equal Pay Act, and GINA.  EEOC Chair Jacqueline A. Berrien stated, “Discrimination continues to be a substantial problem for too many job seekers and workers, and we must continue to build our capacity to enforce the laws that ensure that workplaces are free of unlawful bias.”  Detailed statistics on the charges filed with the EEOC are available on its website.  The numbers show marked increases in charges involving disability discrimination and all types of retaliation.

And, in other interesting EEOC news, the EEOC recently brought a lawsuit against Kaplan Higher Education Corporation, accusing it of discriminating against black job applicants through the way it uses credit histories in its hiring process.  The EEOC alleges that Kaplan’s rejection of job applicants based on their credit history has “disparate impact” on black applicants.

Categories: General News Tags: ADA, ADEA, Credit History, Disability Discrimination, Disparate Impact, EEOC, Equal Pay Act, GINA, Labor and Employment, Retaliation, Title VII

This New York Times article discusses an important employment issue that may become more prevelant: whether and how employers may test and discipline employees for using legal prescription drugs.  As the article relates, drug testing like this is regulated in part by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

In North Carolina, two other state statutes can come into play.  First is the Controlled Substance Examination Regulation, N.C. Gen. Stat. 95-230 et seq., which specifies some of the required procedures for drug testing.

Second is the statute protecting against workplace discrimination against persons for the lawful use of lawful products, N.C. Gen. Stat. 95-28.2.  Under the law, an employer generally may not discriminate based on an employee’s “lawful use of lawful products if the activity occurs off the premises of the employer during nonworking hours and does not adversely affect the employee’s job performance or the person’s ability to properly fulfill the responsibilities of the position in question or the safety of other employees.”

Categories: General News Tags: ADA, Americans with Disabilities Act, Controlled Substances, Discrimination, Drug Testing, Labor and Employment, New York Times, North Carolina

Burton Craige and Leto Copeley are speaking this weekend at the North Carolina Advocates for Justice Mountain Magic Conference.  Burton is leading a panel entitled “Collateral Attack on the Collateral Source Rule.”  He will lead a discussion about the national trend to allow defendants to introduce evidence of the amount actually paid for medical expenses, rather than limiting the evidence to the amount billed.

Leto will be speaking about employment law issues that workers’ compensation practitioners should be aware of, such as the ADA and FMLA.  Wage and hour issues are also important ones to consider.  As this short paper prepared by Leto and Narendra Ghosh states, “Workers’ compensation practitioners should remain vigilant for potential wage and hour violations as they pursue claims for their clients. When getting information on a client’s average weekly wage, for instance, it is important to at least consider whether your client is getting paid fully, including for overtime, under the wage and hour laws.”

Categories: News of the Firm Tags: ADA, Articles, Average Weekly Wage, Burton Craige, FMLA, Labor and Employment, Leto Copeley, Narendra Ghosh, NCAJ, Personal Injuries, Presentation, Wage and Hour, Workers' Compensation

Two opinions of note were issued by the North Carolina Court of Appeals yesterday.  The first, Beard v. Cumberland County Hospital System, concerns North Carolina’s Retaliatory Employment Discrimination Act (REDA).   REDA prohibits discrimination or retaliation against an employee for, among other things, filing a workers’ compensation claim.  N.C. Gen. Stat. § 95-241(a)(1).  The discrimination or retaliation can be a “discharge, suspension, demotion, retaliatory relocation of an employee, or other adverse employment action taken against an employee in the terms, conditions, privileges, and benefits of employment.”  § 95-240(2).

In this case, the plaintiff had been injured at work, filed a workers’ compensation claim, and was receiving benefits.  Disputes arose regarding her benefits and her ability to work, which led to the REDA claim.  Specifically, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant retaliated against her by (1) refusing to allow her to be treated by her preferred neurosurgeon, Dr. Mark Roy, and (2) refusing to allow her to return to work in a light duty position when she could not physically perform her original position.

The Court held that neither action could constitute “retaliation” under REDA.  The first was purely a dispute about workers’ compensation benefits, was not connected to terms of employment, and thus had to be handled as a workers’ compensation issue in the Industrial Commission.  The second was not retaliation because, unlike the Americans with Disabilities Act, REDA does not impose an obligation on employers to accommodate an employee’s physical limitations.  If an employee cannot physically perform her job, REDA does not bar their separation.

Lee v. Wignat Road, LLC is a cautionary case.  The Court dismissed the appeal because the plaintiff-appellants failed to serve the notice of appeal on all the parties, specifically the non-appealling plaintiffs and some of the defendants.  The Court found the error deserved dismissal because it impaired the Court’s ability to hear from all parties, and because the appeal seemed to lack merit in any event.

Categories: Judicial Decisions Tags: ADA, Americans with Disabilities Act, Appeals, Case Commentary, Industrial Commission, Labor and Employment, NC Court of Appeals, REDA, Retaliation, Retaliatory Employment Discrimination Act, Workers' Compensation

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA) was passed last year and went into effect on January 1, 2009.  The Act makes important changes to the definition of the term “disability” by rejecting the holdings in several Supreme Court decisions and portions of existing regulations. The effect of these changes is to make it easier for an individual seeking protection under the ADA to establish that he or she has a disability within the meaning of the ADA.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is the federal agency tasked with issuing regulations that provide more specific rules concering the act.  According to a Notice by the EEOC about the ADAAA, the Act retains the ADA’s basic definition of “disability” as an impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a record of such an impairment, or being regarded as having such an impairment. However, it changes the way that these statutory terms should be interpreted in several ways. Most significantly, the Act: Read more…

Categories: Legislative Action Tags: ADA, ADAAA, Disability, Discrimination, EEOC, Labor and Employment, Regulations

Valerie Johnson spoke at the 2008 Annual Conference of the AFL-CIO Lawyers Coordinating Committee (LCC), which was held in Seattle.  Valerie’s talk was part of a session concerning health and safety for workers.  She presented a paper, written along with Narendra Ghosh, titled How Can Unions Protect Injured Workers?

Summary: This paper discusses some common problems faced by injured workers and the remedies available to them. First, workers are often blamed for their own injuries, and then disciplined or discharged for violating safety rules. Those covered by a CBA can contest those sanctions through arbitration. Second, workers who have recovered from their accident may be denied from returning to their jobs on account of their injury. In some cases, such a denial is unlawful under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Third, workers injured by unsafe workplaces may be retaliated against if they report the safety hazard to their employer. Retaliation can be challenged under OSHA § 11(c), and often also under state law.  Finally, those assisting injured workers should always bear in mind the benefits available under workers’ compensation law and the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”).

Categories: News of the Firm Tags: ADA, AFL-CIO, Articles, Case Commentary, FMLA, LCC, Narendra Ghosh, OSHA, Presentation, Retaliation, Union, Valerie Johnson, Workers' Compensation