A local tavern is paying two of its former bartenders $225,000 after being sued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC filed a lawsuit on behalf of the bartenders, alleging that New York Beer Project discriminated against them because of their medical history in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The EEOC sued for back pay and emotional distress damages.
Additionally, New York Beer Project has agreed to implement anti-discrimination policies, complaint procedures, and training for all employees.
Although the New York Beer Project originated in Lockport, New York and has four locations across Western New York, the location in question is just outside of Rochester, in the Town of Victor.
The Complaints
The first bartender claimant had been diagnosed with cancer and was undergoing chemotherapy, but fortunately, he eventually was cleared to return to work. Even after attending two training sessions, though, he wasn’t added back to the work schedule, and shortly thereafter, he was fired. When questioned, the general manager claimed that he was fired due to negative feedback, yet no evidence of this negative feedback ever was recorded.
The second bartender claimant sustained a traumatic brain injury in a motorcycle accident and was unable to work for a period of time due to seizures. Once cleared by his physician, he attempted to come back to work. Despite being released to work, like the first claimant, he wasn’t added back to the bartending schedule. Instead, his supervisor told him he should take more time off because he worried the bartender might have more seizures.
Violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act
As we know, the EEOC is a federal agency that protects against discrimination in the workplace and investigates violations of workers’ rights under the law. Among the laws that the EEOC investigates is the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which forbids employers from treating a qualified employee or applicant unfavorably because of the person’s disability.
In this federal court lawsuit, the EEOC alleged that New York Beer Project violated the law by firing qualified employees based on “stereotypical beliefs about their medical condition.” That’s a non-starter under federal law.
According to the EEOC’s guidelines:
“Once an employee is hired and has started work, an employer generally can only ask disability-related questions and/or require a medical exam if the employer needs medical information to support an employee’s request for an accommodation or if the employer has objective evidence that an employee is not able to perform a job successfully or safely because of a medical condition.”
Given these guidelines, in the absence of any objective evidence that the cancer-patient bartender was unable to perform his job successfully, the employer shouldn’t keep him off the schedule and arguably couldn’t lawfully fire him based on stereotypical ideology of his medical condition. Stated differently, said the EEOC, just because you think a cancer patient is infirm doesn’t mean you can keep them from doing their job if they say they’re ready, willing, and able to work.
As for the brain-injured bartender who also certified he was ready, willing, and able to return to work, the EEOC claimed the employer discriminated against him by not placing him back on the schedule. There seemed to be no evidence that this fellow was still suffering seizure activity and, so the EEOC claimed that not allowing him to return to work was tantamount to disability discrimination.
Wait! You might say we all know that the ADA requires companies to provide reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities. We also know that the accommodation must be reasonable under all of the circumstances. If a disabled employee can’t work with a reasonable accommodation, or if the requested accommodation creates an undue hardship for the employer, then termination may very well be an appropriate remedy.
Here, however, neither employee had requested an accommodation when he returned to work. Each said he was ready to go. Neither was looking for some sort of easier job, or light duty assignment, or some other sort of accommodation.
As a result, the EEOC argued, there was no legitimate reason for either of them to be terminated. As a consequence, the EEOC argued this was a clear sign of discrimination based on disability.
Liability Under the Law
Given the facts alleged in the federal court complaint, the employer here had to assess the likelihood of being held liable for discrimination under the ADA. When an employer and its attorney make this assessment, they also necessarily factor in the time, expense, and distraction of defending a lawsuit, especially one in federal court where the dockets are clogged and cases can linger for five years or more.
In this case, then, less than a year after the case began, the parties entered into a settlement – typically called a consent decree. A consent decree is just a formal phrase for a settlement agreement that a judge then signs off on – or as we lawyers say – the judge “so orders” the consent decree.
The employer agreed to pay money damages in the amount of $225,000 for back pay and emotional distress damages to both gentlemen. While New York Beer Project didn’t admit liability, the consent decree provided that the company would create compliant policies, train employees, supervisors, and managers, would alert all workers to the case and its outcome by posting a notice, and would never discriminate against an employee again.
These are typical of the kinds of settlement terms that come about after a claim of discrimination by the EEOC.
Practice Pointers for Businesses
- To ensure that your business isn’t engaging in discrimination, you should make sure you’re familiar with federal and New York State law as well as State and EEOC regulations and guidelines. This is as true for disability discrimination as it is for other kinds of discrimination based on protected classes such as race, age, gender, and national origin, among others.
- Companies are well advised to have employee handbooks that contain anti-discrimination policies. If a supervisor or manager engages in dscrimination, these policies provide the basis for disciplining the wrongdoer – including termination where warranted.
- Finally, employers need to have sophisticated onsite managers. If management isn’t familiar with human resources rules and regulations, you should find outside service providers to guide you. That doesn’t have to be an attorney in every situation. Paying for an HR professional as a consultant is well worth the investment when the alternative is a lawsuit in federal court.
Ultimately, as we’ve always heard, ignorance of the law isn’t a defense. And even though it may seem contrary to common sense, even kindness isn’t a defense.
There’s no saying whether the managers in the New York Beer Project case may simply have been concerned for their employees – perhaps wondering whether they needed more time off to heal or feel 100% themselves. But that’s not a defense to a claim of disability discrimination either.
Ultimately, it’s up to the business owner or entrepreneur to know the law – or have adequate guidance surrounding them – so that they avoid liability.
We are here to answer questions you may have regarding New York State and federal work-related statutes, the EEOC’s workplace requirements, or other employment law-related questions.
Email us at info@coppolalegal.com, or call us at (716)-839-9700 if you need help.
