Description
In a press release dated June 16th, 2016, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission discussed the ruling in a case of employment discrimination against a female worker who developed a disability. The suit was filed against Liberty Chrysler, Jeep, Dodge LLC, Internet Auto Rent and Sales of Las Vegas Inc., and Internet Auto Rent & Sales Inc. by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission para. 5). It was found that the employee was wrongfully terminated after she requested to take a medical leave of absence due to her disability. The employee presented medical documentation validating the temporary diagnosis of multiple sclerosis and the need for time off for further neurological diagnostics (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission para. 3).
According to the case docket, the female employee was a sales representative at the automotive dealership for three months prior to her diagnosis (U.S. EEOC v. Liberty Chrysler, Jeep, Dodge LLC. And Internet Auto Rent & Sales of Las Vegas Inc.). When the employee began experiencing symptoms of multiple sclerosis, she informed her direct supervisor that she was losing her balance, experiencing vision changes and numbness in her face. Her employer terminated her in late 2010 after receiving a medical doctor’s note to temporarily excuse her from work (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission para 3). The court found that the employer was in direct violation of the American with Disabilities Act when the employer terminated the employee. As a result, the employer had to pay the employee $50,000 in compensation, implement additional training on disability discrimination, change its human resources policies, display notifications of the ruling within employer buildings, change the way managers are evaluated, and provide reports to the Equal Opportunity Commission over three years (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission para 5).
Importance
The ruling in this case does not change the stipulations laid out in the American with Disabilities Act. The act requires employers to “provide reasonable accommodation to an employee or job applicant with a disability, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship for the employer” (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission para 5). Rather the significance of this case determines how employers are allowed to interpret the law. It is obvious from the employer’s actions that management determined the female employee’s disability would impose an “undue hardship.” The ruling in the case makes it clear that the employer did not provide adequate training for its employees and managerial staff on what constitutes unlawful discrimination, based on an employee’s disability status. The employee could have been reassigned to a different position within the organization or given tools to physically help her carry out her duties as a salesperson. Reduced hours or job sharing is another alternative that the employer could have offered its employee.
An additional point of significance in this case is the fact that employers are not allowed to terminate employees based on disabilities they develop after the fact. The employer may have hired the female employee under the assumption that she could perform the job without accommodation. Yet, the employee also made this assumption when she applied for and accepted the job. It is reasonable to assume that neither side would have anticipated the development of multiple sclerosis or any other disability. The ruling in this case ensures that worker’s disability rights are protected in the event that an employee develops a disability during his or her tenure, and that employers must make reasonable accommodations without undue hardship to ensure employees are able to continue to contribute to organizational success.
Impact
Future claims of employment discrimination based on disabilities that develop after the fact will be easier to prove due to the precedent this case sets. Since the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, it stands to reason that managerial staff will not be able to deny medical leave to employees. The caveat, of course, is whether the employer will be able to provide accommodation without undue hardship. The ruling in this case will make it more difficult for employers to claim undue hardship based on any accommodations needed for acquired disabilities.
This case is logical and useful since it demonstrates that employers cannot automatically terminate an employee because he or she develops a disability that still allows him or her to work. If the employer was able to prove that the female employee’s multiple sclerosis would render her incapable of performing her duties, this case would not be as useful in this area. Employees that need to take medical leave can now rest assured that employers will be unable to strip them of their duties, positions and livelihood because of a disability.
The ruling in this case directly impacts the type of training that employers provide, especially for leadership. As enforcers and designers of company policies, leadership needs to be mindful of whether those policies and practices are in direct violation of the law. Organizational leadership can look to this case to help determine whether existing policies and procedures need to be revised, how to go about any applicable revisions, and determine if discrimination is currently part of the organizational culture. Perhaps the most useful component of this case is helping to prevent future acts of discrimination and preventing employees with disabilities from undergoing their own undue hardship.
Works Cited
“Liberty Chrysler Dealership to Pay $50,000 to Settle EEOC Disability Discrimination Lawsuit.”
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 16 June 2016. Web. 21 June 2016. < https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/6-16-16a.cfm>
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission vs. Liberty Chrysler, Jeep, Dodge LLC and
Internet Auto Rent & Sales of Las Vegas Inc. Case 3:15-cv-00232-HDM-VPC. Docket Alarm. Web. 21 June 2016 < https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Nevada_District_Court/3--15-cv-00232/U.S._Equal_Employment_Opportunity_Commission_v._Liberty_Chrysler_Jeep_Dodge_LLC_et_al/60/>
