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.

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.”

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.”

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.

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:

• directs EEOC to revise that portion of its regulations defining the term “substantially limits”;
• expands the definition of “major life activities” by including two non-exhaustive lists;
• states that mitigating measures other than “ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses” shall not be considered in assessing whether an individual has a disability;
• clarifies that an impairment that is episodic or in remission is a disability if it would substantially limit a major life activity when active;
• changes the definition of “regarded as” so that it no longer requires a showing that the employer perceived the individual to be substantially limited in a major life activity, and instead says that an applicant or employee is “regarded as” disabled if he or she is subject to an action prohibited by the ADA (e.g., failure to hire or termination) based on an impairment that is not transitory and minor; and
• provides that individuals covered only under the “regarded as” prong are not entitled to reasonable accommodation.

On September 16, the EEOC approved its proposed regulations to implement the ADAAA.  The EEOC has a questions and answers page that goes into some detail about the ADAAA changes to the law.    There is a 60-day period in which the public may submit comments to EEOC about the proposed regulation. At the end of this period, EEOC will evaluate all of the comments and make revisions in response to those comments.

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”).