EEOC Celebrates 25th Anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act July 23

Announces Memorandum of Understanding with Department of Justice, Issues Updated "ABC's of Schedule A" Brochures and Launches ADA 25th Anniversary Webpage

 

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) will commemorate the 25th Anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) jointly with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) at an event at DOJ headquarters. During the event, the two agencies will announce a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) designed to strengthen EEOC and DOJ's Civil Rights Division's enforcement of the ADA and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA).

Title I of the ADA prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in employment. GINA bars the use of genetic information in making employment decisions.

Keynote speakers at the July 23 event will include EEOC Commissioner Chai Feldblum, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta, former Senators Bob Dole and Tom Harkin, and Representative Steny Hoyer. Six individuals who EEOC or DOJ has assisted will participate in a panel discussion about the role the ADA played in their lives and the federal government's efforts to help them address the discrimination they faced.

"As we celebrate the ADA, the world's first comprehensive civil rights law for people with disabilities, we reflect on the critical role that EEOC plays in fulfilling its promise," said EEOC Chair Jenny R. Yang. "We look forward to working with employers and the disability community to make continued progress in the years ahead."

EEOC and DOJ together enforce the ADA's provisions concerning public sector employers. The MOU directs EEOC and DOJ to coordinate investigations of charges of discrimination on the basis of disability, while respecting the distinct responsibilities and enforcement priorities of each agency. Further, the MOU calls for the agencies to share information, as appropriate and to the extent allowable under law.

In time for the 25th anniversary of the ADA, EEOC also will issue its updated five "ABCs of Schedule A" brochures. Schedule A enables federal agencies to streamline the hiring process for qualified individuals with intellectual, severe physical or psychiatric disabilities. The brochures provide updated information on the Schedule A hiring authority for applicants with disabilities seeking federal jobs and for officials assisting people with disabilities to obtain federal jobs.

EEOC partnered with its sister agencies, including the Department of Labor's Office of Disability Employment Policy and the Office of Personnel Management, in updating the Schedule A brochures. The brochures can be found on the EEOC's website at: http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/initiatives/lead/abcs_of_schedule_a.cfm.

In addition, EEOC will launch an ADA 25th anniversary page on the Commission's website. The new webpage provides helpful details about disability rights and responsibilities, information on EEOC's efforts on behalf of people facing discrimination in their workplace based on disabilities, and milestones in the history of EEOC's enforcement of the Act. The webpage can be found at www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/history/ada25th/index.cfm.

EEOC Commissioner Chai Feldblum said, "We have accomplished so much since passage of the ADA 25 years ago, and we have much to celebrate. Still, there is more work to be done to ensure that the promise of the ADA becomes a reality for all.  I am proud that the EEOC has been such a stalwart player in enforcing the ADA over the past 25 years. But this agency will never rest on its laurels."

Source: EEOC

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

DOJ Files Lawsuit Alleging Southeastern Oklahoma State University Discriminated Against Transgender Woman

The Justice Department announced today the filing of a lawsuit against Southeastern Oklahoma State University (Southeastern) and the Regional University System of Oklahoma (RUSO) for violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by discriminating against a transgender employee on the basis of her sex and retaliating against her when she complained about the discrimination. Attorney General Eric Holder announced in December 2014 that the Department of Justice takes the position that Title VII's prohibition against sex discrimination is best read to extend the statute's protection to claims based on an individual's gender identity, including transgender status.

According to the United States' complaint, filed in federal district court in Oklahoma City today, Rachel Tudor began working for Southeastern as an Assistant Professor in 2004. At the time of her hire, Tudor presented as a man. In 2007, Tudor, consistent with her gender identity, began to present as a woman at work. Throughout her employment, Tudor performed her job well, and in 2009, she applied for a promotion to the tenured position of Associate Professor. Southeastern's administration denied her application, overruling the recommendations of her department chair and other tenured faculty from her department. The United States' complaint alleges that Southeastern discriminated against Tudor when it denied her application because of her gender identity, gender transition and non-conformance with gender stereotypes.

"By standing beside Dr. Tudor, the Department of Justice sends a clear message that we are committed to eliminating discrimination on the basis of sex and gender identity," said Attorney General Eric Holder. "We will not allow unfair biases and unjust prejudices to prevent transgender Americans from reaching their full potential as workers and as citizens. And we will continue to work tirelessly, using every legal tool available, to ensure that transgender individuals are guaranteed the rights and protections that all Americans deserve."

In 2010, Tudor filed complaints regarding the denial of her application for promotion and tenure. Shortly after it learned of her complaints, Southeastern refused to let Tudor re-apply for promotion and tenure despite Southeastern's own policies permitting re-application. At the end of the 2010-11 academic year, Southeastern and RUSO terminated Tudor's employment because she had not obtained tenure.

Tudor filed a charge of discrimination with the Oklahoma City Area Office of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleging that Southeastern's decisions were unlawful. The EEOC investigated the charge and determined that there was reasonable cause to believe discrimination occurred. The EEOC's attempts at conciliation were unsuccessful, and it referred the matter to the Department of Justice.

This lawsuit was brought by the Department of Justice as a result of a joint effort to enhance collaboration between the EEOC and the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division for vigorous enforcement of Title VII.

"This is a tremendous example of how collaboration between EEOC and the Department of Justice leads to strong and coordinated enforcement of Title VII," said EEOC Chair Jenny R. Yang. "This case furthers the EEOC's Strategic Enforcement Plan, which includes coverage of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals under Title VII's sex discrimination provisions as a national enforcement priority."

"The American workplace must be a level playing field free from discrimination - a place where employees compete based on their merit," said Director Holly Waldron Cole of the EEOC's Oklahoma City Area Office. "Here, the decisions about Dr. Tudor's employment should have been based on her qualifications, not on impermissible bias and stereotype."

"The Department of Justice is committed to protecting the civil rights of all Americans, including transgender Americans," said Acting Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta of the Civil Rights Division. "Discrimination against employees because of their gender identity, gender transition, or because they do not conform to stereotypical notions about how men and women should act or appear violates Title VII. Retaliating against an employee for complaining about unlawful discrimination, as happened in this case, is also unacceptable under Title VII." 
 
As alleged in the complaint, Title VII's prohibition on sex discrimination includes discrimination because of gender identity or because an employee has completed a gender transition or is undertaking a gender transition. Title VII also prohibits an employer from discriminating against an employee because her behavior or appearance does not conform to traditional gender stereotypes. In addition, Title VII prohibits employers from retaliating against employees, like Tudor, who lodge complaints about discriminatory treatment. Through its lawsuit, the United States seeks both monetary and injunctive relief.

Attorney General Eric Holder announced in December 2014 that the Department of Justice takes the position that Title VII's prohibition against sex discrimination is best read to extend the statute's protection to claims based on an individual's gender identity, including transgender status.

Source: EEOC

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

DOJ and City of Jackson, MS Extend Agreement to Resolve ADA Lawsuit with the City's Public Transportation System

The Justice Department filed a joint motion to extend a settlement under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) with the city of Jackson, Mississippi. The original lawsuit challenged inaccessibility in Jackson’s public transportation system, and was filed by 11 residents of Jackson with disabilities and two non-profit organizations that work on behalf of people with disabilities.

The Department of Justice has monitored the city under the terms of the five-year consent decree, filed in federal court in Jackson in March 2010. That agreement required the city to keep the wheelchair lifts working on the city’s fixed route bus system, known as JATRAN; train staff to properly help riders with disabilities; and meet its required level of service to passengers of Handilift, the ADA complementary paratransit service.

The parties agree that while the city has improved its accessible bus services, the city has not yet fully complied with the consent decree. Therefore, the city will continue to make improvements and will report progress to the department on a monthly basis.

"Today’s action by the parties shows our vigilant commitment to remain engaged with the city of Jackson until the city has fixed any problems with the level of accessible public transportation provided to it its citizens," said Acting Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta of the Civil Rights Division. "The department is grateful for the city of Jackson’s continued cooperation in resolving this matter and their commitment to reaching full accessibility of JATRAN."

“We remain committed to the rights of all citizens to have accessible transportation services in the Capital City of Jackson,” said U. S. Attorney Gregory K. Davis of the Southern District of Mississippi. “The U.S. Attorney’s Office is also grateful for the cooperative relationship between the city of Jackson and the Department of Justice in working towards fulfilment of the terms of the consent decree.”

Source: DOJ

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

DOJ and EEOC Sign Memorandum Of Understanding to Further the Goals of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in Prohibiting Employment Discrimination in State and Local Governments

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the U.S. Department of Justice's (DOJ) Civil Rights Division yesterday signed a new Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to further the goals of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in prohibiting employment discrimination in the state and local government sector. The signing ceremony took place on Monday, March 2, at DOJ's headquarters in Washington, D.C., and included remarks from Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta of the Civil Rights Division and EEOC Chair Jenny Yang.

EEOC and DOJ share enforcement authority for public sector employers under Title VII. The EEOC receives, investigates and mediates charges of discrimination against public employers. Where the EEOC finds reasonable cause to believe an unlawful employment practice has occurred, the agency works with the employer to negotiate a mutually agreeable resolution to the charge. If conciliation of a charge fails, the EEOC refers the charge and its investigative file to DOJ, which has sole authority within the federal government to file a lawsuit against public employers under Title VII.

The MOU includes provisions for the coordination of the investigation of charges of discrimination on the basis of any characteristic protected by Title VII, while respecting the distinct responsibilities and enforcement priorities of each agency. Further, the MOU includes provisions for sharing information, as appropriate and to the extent allowable under law.
 
This MOU codifies a pilot project launched in 2009 by DOJ and EEOC. The pilot, which began with four of EEOC's district offices, has been expanded over the years and now includes the Chicago, Indianapolis, Los Angeles, New York, Philadelphia and San Francisco District Offices, as well as the Washington, D.C. Field Office, among others. Over the years, the pilot has served to enhance the effectiveness of the nation's equal employment opportunity enforcement program in the public sector, ensuring the efficient use of resources and a consistent enforcement strategy.

"The MOU brings to life our vision to approach our shared Title VII enforcement responsibilities as a partnership," said Acting Assistant Attorney General Gupta. "It institutionalizes that partnership and provides a concrete framework for expanding our collaborations and increasing our effectiveness in protecting the employment rights of public sector workers."

"Our state and local governments provide essential services that affect all of us every day in every part of our lives," said EEOC Chair Yang. "One of the greatest tools that our public institutions have for inspiring trust and credibility in our communities is to ensure that all public employees enjoy equal opportunity at work. That is the significance of the MOU we sign today."

There have been several successful examples of the existing partnership between EEOC and DOJ, including the settlement of Murphy-Taylor v. State of Maryland, et al., a sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit involving the Queen Anne's County Sheriff, in which the United States intervened; the settlement with the Board of Education, Berkeley School District 87, Cook County, Illinois, over religious accommodation discrimination; and a settlement with Clark County, Nevada, for wage discrimination and retaliation against an African-American female manager resulting in $179,000 in monetary relief.

The MOU is just one example of the enforcement partnership between the EEOC and DOJ. The agencies collaborate on several interagency taskforces and working groups, including the Federal Interagency Reentry Council, the National Equal Pay Enforcement Taskforce, the Curb Cuts to the Middle Class Initiative, the Task Force to Monitor and Combat Human Trafficking, the Interagency Working Group for the Consistent Enforcement of Federal Labor, Employment and Immigration Laws, and most recently an interagency working group on police force diversity.

The MOU and information about Title VII and other federal employment laws is available on the Employment Litigation Section of the Civil Rights Division's website or the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's website.

Source: Department of Justice and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

Justice Department Settles Second Pregnancy Discrimination Lawsuit Against Florida Fire Department

The Justice Department announced that it has reached a consent decree with the town of Davie, Florida, to resolve allegations that the Davie Fire Department discriminated against firefighter/paramedic Lori Davis because of her pregnancy and retaliated against firefighter/paramedic Monica Santana because she complained about gender discrimination. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin and religion.
 
According to the Justice Department, the consent decree resolves allegations of disparate treatment based on pregnancy that resulted from light duty policies implemented by the Davie Fire Department. In 2012, the Department of Justice challenged those discriminatory light duty policies in a related pattern or a practice Title VII case resulting in the filing of a complaint and consent decree to resolve the case. The consent decree entered by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida required that the fire department abandon its existing discriminatory light duty policies and adopt new, non-discriminatory policies. This new complaint is the result of individual charges of discrimination referred to the Justice Department by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
 
As alleged by the Justice Department in this complaint, Davis worked for the Davie Fire Department under its prior policies and was adversely affected by those policies which were implemented in violation of Title VII. Under Title VII, discrimination based on sex includes discrimination due to pregnancy, and requires that women affected by pregnancy be treated the same as other employees who are similar in their ability or inability to work. Under federal law, an employer may not retaliate against employees because they complain about discrimination based on sex.

As alleged in the complaint, Davis’s doctor wanted Davis on light duty during her pregnancy. The fire department’s policy, however, would not allow her light duty during her first trimester. Davis continued to work and eventually was required to fight a fire while pregnant. She suffered a miscarriage after doing so. The complaint also alleges that Santana complained about other policies and practices at the fire department that she reasonably believed discriminated against female firefighters. After she complained about the discriminatory treatment, the fire department responded to her complaints by taking adverse actions against her designed to discourage similar complaints.

The consent decree, filed simultaneously with the complaint in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida must still be approved by the federal court. Under the terms of the agreement, the fire department must review and adopt appropriate anti-retaliation policies to protect its employees from further violations of Title VII and conduct training of its personnel to ensure that they properly handle future complaints under Title VII. The fire department must also pay monetary awards to compensate Davis, Santana, and two other similarly-situated, pregnant firefighters. The total monetary awards to all four women will exceed $400,000.
 
“Every day, expectant mothers after consulting with their doctors make difficult decisions about how and, more importantly, when to restrict their work duties due to pregnancy,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta of the Civil Rights Division. “The Civil Rights Division is firmly committed to vigorous enforcement of Title VII’s prohibitions against pregnancy discrimination and retaliation so that women can make decisions regarding their pregnancies and try to remedy discriminatory treatment without fear of unwarranted repercussions in the work place after doing so.”

“Firefighters are dedicated public servants who put their lives at risk every day to protect the citizens of our community,” said U.S. Attorney Wilfredo A. Ferrer of the Southern District of Florida. “We are committed to enforcing the federal laws that protect expectant mothers against discrimination so that they will not be forced to choose between their job and their decision to have a family.”

Source: DOJ

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

Justice Department Settles Sexual Harassment and Retaliation Suit Against the State of Maryland, Queen Anne’s County, and the Queen Anne’s County Sheriff

The Justice Department announced that it has entered into a consent decree with the state of Maryland and the Queen Anne's County Sheriff. If approved by the court, the settlement will resolve Murphy-Taylor v. State of Maryland, et al., a sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit in which the United States intervened in Feb. 2013. The United States previously entered into a consent decree with Queen Anne's County in May 2014.

The United States' complaint in intervention alleged that several supervisors in the Sheriff's Office, including the Sheriff's brother, subjected Kristy Murphy-Taylor to severe sexual harassment and that the Sheriff and members of his command staff retaliated against her when she complained in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. According to the United States' complaint, over a number of years, Ms. Murphy-Taylor was subjected to numerous acts of unwanted sexual conduct by multiple supervisors including repeated incidents of unwanted sexual touching by the Sheriff's brother. Despite Ms. Murphy-Taylor's complaints about the harassment, the complaint alleges that the defendants failed to take prompt and effective corrective action. Instead, they allegedly subjected her to intolerable working conditions intended to make her quit, and ultimately terminated her for complaining about the sexual harassment by the Sheriff's brother.

Under the terms of the consent decree with the state of Maryland and the Queen Anne's County Sheriff, the defendants have agreed to revise the relevant sexual harassment policies and the procedures for handling complaints of sexual harassment and retaliation. In particular, the Maryland State Police will provide oversight for the handling of complaints of sexual harassment and retaliation made by employees of the Sheriff's Office against sworn officers. Ms. Murphy- Taylor will also receive $250,000 in damages. Under the terms of the consent decree entered into with Queen Anne's County in May 2014, Ms. Murphy-Taylor received $620,000 in damages including back pay, front pay, and attorney's fees, and Queen Anne's County agreed to provide oversight and investigative functions for the handling of complaints of sexual harassment and retaliation made by employees of the Sheriff's Office.

"No woman should have to face losing her job in order to be free from sexual harassment and retaliation at work," said Acting Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta of the Civil Rights Division. "The Department of Justice is committed to eradicating sex discrimination in the workplace. The resolution of this lawsuit ensures that the Queen Anne's County Sheriff's Office will comply with federal law requiring employers to take prompt and effective corrective action to complaints of sexual harassment."

"Workplace harassment should not be tolerated," said Chair Jenny R. Yang of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). "Complaints of workplace harassment are among the most frequent complaints we receive at EEOC, accounting for 30% of the total charges we received last year. The Commission is working to prevent and address harassment through targeted outreach and enforcement."

Director Spencer H. Lewis Jr. of the EEOC's Philadelphia District Office said, "This is another example of how collaboration between the EEOC and the Department of Justice leads to effective enforcement of Title VII and ensures that public employees are protected from workplace discrimination and retaliation prohibited by Title VII."

Source: EEOC

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

Medtronic Inc. to Pay Millions to Resolve False Claims Act Allegations

Medical device manufacturer Medtronic Inc. has agreed to pay the United States $2.8 million to resolve allegations under the False Claims Act that Medtronic caused certain physicians to submit false claims to federal health care programs for a medical procedure known as “SubQ stimulation,” the Justice Department announced today. Medtronic Inc. is a medical technology company based in Minnesota.

“Today’s settlement demonstrates our commitment to ensure that beneficiaries of federal health care plans, including Medicare recipients and military families, receive medical treatments that have been proven safe and effective,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Joyce R. Branda of the Justice Department’s Civil Division. “Targeting chronic pain patients with a medical procedure that lacks evidence of clinical efficacy wastes the country’s health care resources.”

The United States alleged that from 2007 through 2011, Medtronic knowingly caused dozens of physicians located throughout more than 20 states to submit claims to Medicare and TRICARE for investigational medical procedures known as SubQ stimulation that were not reimbursable. In these procedures, Medtronic’s spinal cord stimulation devices were placed just beneath the skin near an area of pain, most often in the lower back, where the devices could provide electrical impulses to create a “tingling” sensation intended to alleviate chronic pain. The United States alleged that even though the safety and efficacy of SubQ stimulation had not been established as required by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the company promoted this procedure by, among other strategies, arranging to have physician-customers attend Medtronic-sponsored “on-site training programs” regarding the use of Medtronic spinal cord stimulation devices for SubQ stimulation. 
      
“Patients should be able to trust that their health care providers only use – and bill Medicare for – medical procedures that have been shown to be safe and effective,” said Special Agent in Charge Scott J. Lampert of the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General (HHS–OIG). “Our agency will continue to pursue medical device makers that ignore requirements designed to protect patient health and federal health care programs.”

The civil settlement resolves a lawsuit filed under the whistleblower provision of the False Claims Act, which permits private parties to file suit on behalf of the United States for false claims and obtain a portion of the government’s recovery. The lawsuit was filed by Jason Nickell, who formerly worked as a Medtronic sales representative. Nickell will receive $602,000.

This settlement illustrates the government’s emphasis on combating health care fraud and marks another achievement for the Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT) initiative, which was announced in May 2009 by the Attorney General and the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The partnership between the two departments has focused efforts to reduce and prevent Medicare and Medicaid financial fraud through enhanced cooperation. 
One of the most powerful tools in this effort is the False Claims Act. Since January 2009, the Justice Department has recovered a total of more than $23.5 billion through False Claims Act cases, with more than $15 billion of that amount recovered in cases involving fraud against federal health care programs.

The settlement with Medtronic was the result of a coordinated effort among the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of New York, the Civil Division’s Commercial Litigation Branch, HHS–OIG, the Defense Health Agency, the FDA’s Office of Chief Counsel and the FDA’s Office of Criminal Investigations.

Source: DOJ

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

   

DOJ Reaches Settlement Agreement with the Erie County Jail

The Department of Justice (DOJ) announced today that it has entered into a settlement agreement under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to prevent disability discrimination and ensure equal access to the programs, services, and facilities to the inmates with disabilities at the Erie County Jail. The agreement also requires the Jail to provide cells with mobility features for inmates with mobility disabilities and auxiliary aids and services for inmates who are deaf or have hearing loss, are blind or have low vision.

Source: DOJ

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

Justice Department Files Lawsuit Against Louisiana Crane Company Alleging Discrimination Against Work-authorized Immigrants

The Justice Department announced today the filing of a lawsuit with the Executive Office for Immigration Review against Louisiana Crane Company LLC (Louisiana Crane), which is headquartered in Eunice, Louisiana.

The complaint alleges that Louisiana Crane violated the Immigration and Nationality Act’s (INA) anti-discrimination provision by creating hurdles for immigrants during the employment eligibility verification process because of their citizenship status. Specifically, the complaint states that, from at least January 2013 until at least September 2013, Louisiana Crane required employees who it believed to be non-U.S. citizens to present specific documentation for the Form I-9 and/or E-Verify, but allowed believed to be U.S. citizens the flexibility to present a variety of documents. The INA’s anti-discrimination provision prohibits employers from discriminating against people with permission to work in the United States because of their citizenship status.

 

“The law protects people who have permission to work from facing discriminatory obstacles during employment eligibility verification,” said Molly Moran, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “It is important that all people who have permission to work in the United States face an equal playing field when proving their work authorization.”

 

The Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC) is responsible for enforcing the anti-discrimination provision of the INA. Among other things, the statute prohibits citizenship status and national origin discrimination in hiring, firing, or recruitment or referral for a fee; unfair documentary practices; retaliation; and intimidation.

 

Source: DOJ 

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

Justice Department Announces Proposed Amendment to ADA Regulations

The Justice Department announced on July 25th that Attorney General Eric Holder has signed a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to amend the Title III regulation for the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to require movie theaters to provide closed movie captioning and audio description in order to give persons with hearing and vision disabilities access to movies.

"This proposed rule will allow all Americans, including those with disabilities, to fully participate in the moviegoing experience. With this proposal, the Justice Department is taking an important step to ensure consistent access for people with vision and hearing disabilities," said Attorney General Eric Holder. "Twenty-four years after its passage, the Americans with Disabilities Act remains a critical tool for extending the promise of opportunity and inclusion for everyone in this country."

 

Closed movie captioning refers to captions that are delivered to the patron’s seat and are visible only to that patron. Audio description enables individuals who are blind or have low vision to enjoy movies by providing a spoken narration of key visual elements of a movie, such as actions, settings, facial expressions, costumes and scene changes. Audio description is transmitted to a user’s wireless headset. The department is proposing to provide a consistent nationwide standard for movie theaters to exhibit movies that are available with closed movie captioning and audio description for all showings. The department is also proposing to require theaters to provide a specific number of closed captioning and audio description devices. Theaters need not comply with the proposed rule if doing so would cause an undue burden or fundamental alteration. The department is not proposing to require movie theaters to add captions or audio description to movies that are not already produced and distributed with these features.

 

The department is proposing a six-month compliance date for movie theaters’ digital movie screens and is seeking public comment on whether it should adopt a four-year compliance date for movie theaters’ analog movie screens or should defer rulemaking on analog screens until a later date.

 

“As we celebrate the 24^th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act on Saturday, we are reminded that people with disabilities still do not have full access to all aspects of American cultural life,” said Jocelyn Samuels, Acting Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. “Although some movie theaters are making strides towards meeting their ADA obligations, there is a good deal of inconsistency among theaters across the United States. This proposed rule is intended to ensure that, regardless of where a person with a hearing or vision disability lives, that person will be able to attend movies with their friends and family and fully enjoy this important social and cultural activity.”

 

On July 26, 2010, the department published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) asking how requirements for movie captions and audio description should be implemented. The ANPRM sought public comment regarding the type of accessibility requirements for captioning and video [audio] description the department should consider, particularly in light of the industry’s conversion to digital cinema technology. The department received more than a thousand comments in response to the ANPRM and these comments were taken into consideration when developing the proposed rule.

Source: DOJ

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

Justice Department Files Lawsuit Alleging Violations of Federal Law and Executive Order by Federal Contractor

The Justice Department announced the filing of a lawsuit today against Entergy Corporation for violating Executive Order 11246, Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974. The lawsuit alleges that the defendant violated these laws and the executive order when it refused to comply with federal contractor requirements to submit proof of required affirmative action programs to the Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP). Because Entergy has refused to supply documentation and cooperate with auditing attempts, OFCCP has been unable to determine if Entergy is in compliance with its affirmative action obligations.

“Government contractors that choose to accept federal funds also agree to abide by laws and regulations aimed at preventing employment discrimination,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Jocelyn Samuels for the Civil Rights Division. “When a government contractor, like Entergy, refuses to adhere to the obligations it accepted as a federal contractor, that refusal undermines the public trust that taxpayers expect in ensuring that public funding is used in a manner that complies with both federal law and agency regulations.”

 

“This issue has been litigated and re-litigated many times, and the courts have been clear: companies that profit from federal contracts must comply with our requests for proof that they are meeting their obligations,” said OFCCP Director Patricia A. Shiu. “Entergy already earns more than $1 billion in taxpayer-funded contracts to provide services to the government. We shouldn’t have to spend more of those dollars taking them to court because they refuse to abide by the law. So, I urge Entergy Chairman and CEO Leo Denault to respect our nation’s hard-won civil rights laws.”

 

Entergy, as a federal contractor, is prohibited from discriminating against employees and job applicants because of race, color, sex, religion, national origin, disability or protected veteran status. The company is also required to take affirmative action to employ qualified women, minorities, people with disabilities and protected veterans. To determine compliance with those affirmative action and non-discrimination requirements, government contractors, including Entergy, are required to develop and maintain written affirmative action programs, retain personnel and employment records, and provide OFCCP access to those documents during compliance reviews or investigations. The lawsuit seeks a permanent injunction requiring Entergy to comply with its obligations, including its obligation to produce documents requested by OFCCP within 30 days of the request.

 

The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, alleges that since May 2012, Entergy has refused OFCCP’s repeated requests to turn over its written affirmative action programs and other records requested as part of the routine compliance review of 11 Entergy locations in Texas, Mississippi and Louisiana.

 

The Department of Labor referred this matter to the Department of Justice when Entergy refused to submit the documents requested by OFCCP even after receiving notices to show cause why enforcement proceedings should not be initiated.

 

Source: DOJ

 

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

Immigration-Related Discrimination Claim Against SK Food Group Inc.Settled

The Justice Department reached an agreement today with SK Food Group Inc., a company based in Seattle, resolving claims that the company used discriminatory document practices when verifying the work authority of non-citizens.
 

The department’s investigation, which was initiated based on a referral from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), found that SK Food required work-authorized non-U.S. citizens to produce specific Department of Homeland Security documents to prove their work authority in connection with the company’s employment eligibility verification process, but did not make similar demands of U.S. citizens. Such discriminatory practices are prohibited under the anti-discrimination provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

 

Under the agreement, SK Food must pay $40,500 in civil penalties to the United States; identify and provide back pay to any individuals who suffered lost wages as a result of the company’s alleged discriminatory documentary practices; undergo training on the anti-discrimination provision of the INA; and be subject to monitoring of its employment eligibility verification practices for one year.

 

“Employers cannot create discriminatory obstacles for work-authorized non-U.S. citizens in the employment eligibility verification process,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Jocelyn Samuels for the Civil Rights Division. “In this case, we commend the company for its full cooperation during the investigation and for its efforts to address and resolve the deficiencies in its employment eligibility verification process.”

 

“No one who is legally authorized to work in the United States should be denied that opportunity based on suspicion or stereotypes,” said U.S. Attorney Jenny A. Durkan for the Western District of Washington. “The agreement filed today ensures training for human resource workers and outreach to employees to promote and safeguard equal treatment for all new workers.”

 

Source: DOJ

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

Immigration-Related Discrimination Claim Against Potter Concrete Settled

The Justice Department reached an agreement today with Potter Concrete, a company based in Dallas, resolving claims that the company engaged in a pattern or practice of document abuse in violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

The department’s investigation, which was initiated based on a referral from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), concluded that Potter Concrete subjected non-U.S. citizen new hires to unlawful demands for specific documentation issued by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security in order to verify their employment eligibility, while U.S. citizens were permitted to present their choice of documentation. The investigation also revealed that Potter Concrete selectively utilized E-Verify to confirm the employment eligibility of individuals they knew or believed to be non-U.S. citizens or foreign born. The INA’s anti-discrimination provision prohibits employers from placing additional documentary burdens on work-authorized employees during the hiring and employment eligibility verification process based on their citizenship status or national origin.

 

Under the settlement agreement, Potter Concrete will pay $115,000 in civil penalties to the United States; undergo training on the anti-discrimination provision of the INA; revise its employment eligibility verification policies; and be subject to monitoring of its employment eligibility verification practices for one year.

 

“Employers cannot create discriminatory hurdles for work-authorized non-U.S. citizens or naturalized citizens in the employment eligibility verification process, which includes the E-Verify program,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Jocelyn Samuels for the Civil Rights Division. “The Department of Justice is committed to protecting U.S. citizens and all work-authorized immigrants from document abuse.”

Source: DOJ
 

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

Justice Department Settles with Rite Aid of Michigan Over Alleged HIV Discrimination

The Justice Department announced today that, as part of its Barrier-Free Health Care Initiative, it has reached a settlement with Rite Aid of Michigan to resolve claims that Rite Aid violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The department found that a Rite Aid store pharmacist in Okemos, Mich., discriminated against a customer with HIV by refusing to administer a flu shot to the customer. Although the pharmacist had access to surgical gloves, she told the customer that she needed “special gloves” to administer a flu shot to him, and that he should return after the store had ordered the gloves.
 

“Erecting unfair and discriminatory barriers to medical care for people with HIV is unacceptable,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Jocelyn Samuels for the Civil Rights Division. “The ADA prohibits these types of barriers, and the Justice Department will fight to tear them down.”
 

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Rite Aid of Michigan must pay $10,000 to the customer and $5,000 in civil penalties. In addition, Rite Aid must train its staff on the requirements of the ADA and implement an anti-discrimination policy.
 

Title III of the ADA prohibits public accommodations such as Rite Aid of Michigan from excluding people with disabilities, including people with HIV, from enjoying goods, services, privileges, facilities, advantages and accommodations provided. For more information regarding the department’s efforts to combat HIV discrimination, please visit www.ada.gov/aids/ada_aids_enforcement.htm. To learn more about the obligations of public accommodations under federal disability rights statutes, call the department’s toll-free ADA information line at 800-514-0301, 800-514-0383 (TTY) or access the ADA website at www.ada.gov. 
 

 Source: DOJ

 

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

DOJ Publishes Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to Implement ADA Amendments Act of 2008

The Department of Justice published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking today intended to revise the department’s Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Title II and Title III regulations to implement the requirements of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA). Congress passed the ADAAA in response to several Supreme Court decisions that had narrowly interpreted the ADA’s definition of disability. The ADAAA made a number of significant changes to the ADA definition of disability to ensure that it would be easier for individuals seeking the protection of the ADA to establish that they have a disability that falls within the meaning of the statute. 
 

“The narrow interpretation of the ADA’s definition of disability resulted in the denial of the law’s protection for many individuals with impairments such as cancer, diabetes and epilepsy who had been the subject of adverse actions due to their disabilities,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Jocelyn Samuels for the Civil Rights Division. “The ADAAA and our proposed regulations properly place the focus of ADA cases on whether a covered entity has complied with its obligations and whether discrimination occurred, and not on whether the person has a disability.”

 

The ADAAA’s revised definition of disability applies to Title I, which deals with employment, as well as to Titles II and III of the ADA. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which is responsible for developing regulations that implement Title I of the ADA, published its revised Title I regulation incorporating the ADAAA in March 2011. The department has made every effort to ensure that its proposed revisions to the Title II and Title III regulations are consistent with, if not identical to, the corresponding provisions in the Title I regulation. This will ensure that the definition of disability is interpreted consistently for all three titles of the ADA. 

 

The comment period for the proposed rule closes on March 31, 2014. For more information about the ADAAA and to comment on the proposed rule, please visit www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/01/30/2014-01668/office-of-the-attorney-general-amendment-of-americans-with-disabilities-act.

 

Source: DOJ
 

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

 

Updated outreach materials in new languages

OSC is pleased to announce that its outreach materials are now available in additional languages.  OSC has published translations of its “E-Verify Know Your Rights,” “Know Your Rights” and “Name and Social Security Number (SSN) ‘No-Match’ Information for Employees” flyers in Arabic, Eastern Punjabi, Haitian Creole, Hindi, Korean, Russian, Simplified Chinese, Spanish, Tagalog, Traditional Chinese, Urdu, Vietnamese, and Western Punjabi.  OSC has also updated its Refugee/Asylee flyers for both employers and workers.  OSC has posted translations of the worker Refugee/Asylee Flyer in Amharic, Arabic, Armenian, Burmese, Farsi, French, Kayah, Nepali, Russian, Sgaw Karen, Simplified Chinese, Somali, Spanish, and Tigrinya.  These translations are available on OSC’s website: http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/osc/htm/worker.php.

Source: DOJ

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

Kim Hoang Coffee and Fast Food Settles Immigration-Related Discrimination Claim

The Justice Department reached an agreement with Kim Hoang Coffee and Fast Food, a restaurant in San Francisco, resolving claims that the company violated the anti-discrimination provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

In a charge filed with the department, a work-authorized immigrant alleged, and the department found, that Kim Hoang Coffee and Fast Food improperly rejected valid work-authorization documents when re-verifying her authorization for employment, which caused the immigrant to believe she had been terminated. The investigation also revealed that the employer believed she could ask non-U.S. citizens to produce specific documents to establish work authorization upon initial hire, but did not need to make similar demands of U.S. citizens. The INA’s anti-discrimination provision prohibits employers from discriminating against non-U.S. citizens in the employment eligibility verification process by demanding different documentation than U.S. citizens are required to present.

 

In response to the department’s investigation, Kim Hoang Coffee and Fast Food offered to rehire the charging party and provide back pay for the charging party’s month of lost wages. Under the terms of the agreement, Kim Hoang Coffee and Fast Food must pay $485 in civil penalties to the United States, undergo department training on the anti-discrimination provision of the INA and be subject to monitoring of its employment eligibility verification practices for a period of three years. The employer also agreed to post the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices’ (OSC) “Right to Work” poster, which highlights the anti-discrimination provision of the INA. The case settled prior to the department filing a complaint in this matter.

 

“Imposing different documentary requirements on individuals based on their citizenship status during the employment eligibility verification process is discrimination prohibited by the INA,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division Jocelyn Samuels. “The Department of Justice is committed to protecting U.S. citizens and all work-authorized immigrants from document abuse.”

 

Source: DOJ

 

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

Justice Department Announces Settlement Agreement with Everett, Wash., Battery Company to Protect Employment Rights of Returning Military Reservist

The Department of Justice announced that it has reached a settlement with All Battery Sales and Service (ABS) of Everett, Wash., to resolve a lawsuit it filed on behalf of Curtis Kirk, a U.S. Army reservist. The lawsuit alleged that the company violated the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) by failing to properly reemploy Kirk in September 2010 after he returned from military service in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The lawsuit also alleged that the defendant unlawfully demoted and then terminated Kirk’s employment without proper cause. If approved by the court, the settlement would resolve the allegations that the defendant violated the reemployment rights of Kirk.

 

ABS is a wholesaler, distributor and retailer of battery products, parts and services. According to the complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, the defendant violated USERRA by not properly reemploying Kirk in a position as a front counter representative, or in a position with comparable seniority, status and pay. The defendant reemployed Kirk in a lower status position than the one he held when he left for active duty service, with fewer guaranteed working hours, a less lucrative commission and bonus structure and fewer opportunities for promotion. ABS later demoted Kirk further and terminated his employment without cause, also in violation of USERRA.

 

Under the terms of the settlement, ABS must pay Kirk $37,500 to compensate him for lost or reduced wages and benefits. Among other things, the settlement also requires the defendant to provide training to ABS’ high-level officials and human resources staff on the USERRA rights and obligations of employers and covered employees.

 

“Employers have a legal obligation to ensure service members get their jobs back when they return from military duty as required by law,” said Jocelyn Samuels, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. “The Civil Rights Division is committed to protecting the rights of those who, through their courage and sacrifice, secure the rights of all Americans.”

 

“Just as our dedicated men and women of the military protect our freedoms overseas, we must protect their interests here at home,” said U.S. Attorney Jenny A. Durkan. “These soldiers have made many sacrifices, and the loss of a career or the job they are entitled to when they return home cannot be allowed. The U.S. Attorney’s Office is committed to enforcing the laws that protect the rights of those brave men and women who serve our country proudly.”

 

Subject to certain conditions, USERRA requires employers to promptly reemploy returning service members in the positions they would have held had their employment been not interrupted by military service or in a position of like seniority, status and pay. In addition, any individual with Kirk’s length of absence for military service who is reemployed cannot be terminated within one year after the date of full and proper reemployment except for just cause.

 

Source: DOJ

 

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

 

Justice Department Reaches Settlement with Arapahoe, Colo., Sheriff’s Office to Resolve Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices

The Justice Department announced that it has reached an agreement with the Arapahoe County, Colo. Office of the Sheriff resolving allegations that the Office of the Sheriff violated the anti-discrimination provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). 

The investigation was initiated based on information obtained in the course of a lawsuit filed by a former employee against the Sheriff’s Office alleging discriminatory termination. The Department’s investigation established that the Office of the Sheriff improperly restricted law enforcement positions to U.S. citizens notwithstanding the fact that no law, regulation, executive order or government contract authorized it to restrict employment in this manner. The former employee who filed the lawsuit was in fact a U.S. citizen and had documentation that showed her work authorization but not her citizenship. The INA’s anti-discrimination provision prohibits certain discriminatory hiring practices against work-authorized individuals and permits employers to limit jobs to U.S. citizens only where the employer is required to do so by law, regulation, executive order, or government contract.

Under the settlement agreement, the Office of the Sheriff’s employment eligibility verification practices will be subject to monitoring by the Justice Department and reporting requirements for a period of three years. The Sheriff’s Office also agreed to pay $500 in civil penalties to the United States. The Office of the Sheriff had already addressed the identified victim’s back pay claims through an earlier agreement based on her private lawsuit. In addition, the Office of the Sheriff informed other affected non-U.S. citizen applicants that they could re-apply for available law enforcement positions. The Sheriff’s Office denied that it committed any violation of the anti-discrimination provision but fully cooperated with the investigation and agreed to revise its hiring policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the INA’s anti-discrimination provision.

“Employers must ensure that their hiring practices do not violate the anti-discrimination provision of the INA,” said Jocelyn Samuels, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. “Any restrictions in hiring based on citizenship status must be pursuant to requirements established by law or government contract, not internal policies. The Office of the Sheriff’s cooperation and its efforts to reach out to non-citizens affected by its past policies reflect its commitment to address the issues raised in this investigation in a meaningful manner.”

Source: DOJ
This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

 

Justice Department Reaches Settlement with Staffing Company to Resolve Immigration-related Unfair Employment Practices

The Justice Department announced today that it reached an agreement with Kelly Services Inc., a staffing company based in Troy, Mich., resolving an allegation of discrimination based on citizenship status during the employment eligibility re-verification process at one of its branch locations in Schaumburg, Ill. The investigation was initiated by the department’s Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC) based on information obtained from a former employee of the company who had contacted that office.

The department’s investigation concluded that Kelly Services terminated the individual’s employment during the employment eligibility re-verification process when he did not produce a new U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)-issued document, even though he had a valid unrestricted Social Security card at the time that was also acceptable to show continued employment eligibility. To resolve the matter, Kelly Services has agreed to compensate the former employee for lost wages in the amount of $1,888.60 and pay a $1,100 civil penalty to the United States. Designated Kelly Services staff will also participate in Justice Department training on employers’ responsibilities under the anti-discrimination provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

         

Source: DOJ

 

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.