Client Alert from the Labor and Employment Group - September 21, 2009
EEOC SLAPS EMPLOYERS WITH LAWSUITS FOR FAILING TO
ALTER MEDICAL LEAVE AND TERMINATION POLICIES FOR DISABLED EMPLOYEES
by Nancy A. Noall and Michael Schmeltzer
In a major class-action lawsuit recently filed in federal court, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleges that United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS) violated federal law by rejecting a disabled employee's request for an extension of medical leave beyond the company's standard, twelve-month medical leave period and later terminating the employee for exceeding the leave period. While this lawsuit has not yet been decided, it highlights the risks employers face when they utilize inflexible medical leave and termination policies.
In this case, a former UPS employee took a twelve month leave of absence after she began experiencing symptoms of what was later diagnosed as multiple sclerosis. UPS had a policy allowing employees to take up to twelve months off for medical leave - but not any longer. When the employee exhausted the twelve-month leave period, she allegedly requested an additional two weeks of medical leave because she began experiencing what she believed were the negative side effects of her medication. UPS refused to grant the request and terminated the employee in accordance with company policy when she exceeded the leave period.
The EEOC's lawsuit alleges that UPS's twelve-month medical leave policy violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) because it is too rigid and fails to reasonably accommodate employees with disabilities. The EEOC is seeking a permanent injunction enjoining UPS from continuing its policy and termination practice, damages for the terminated employee, as well as for a class of employees UPS similarly refused to accommodate, for past and future monetary losses, including back pay and job search expenses, damages for pain and suffering, and punitive damages.
The ADA requires that a covered employer provide reasonable accommodations for qualified employees with disabilities (provided that the accommodations do not present an undue burden on the employer). In some cases, an additional period of unpaid leave may be a reasonable accommodation. In general, these additional leave periods need not be indefinite and may be limited to a period of time after which the employee is expected to be able to perform the essential function of the employee's job.
Regardless of the ultimate outcome of EEOC v. UPS, the case shows that employers who fail to consider allowing additional unpaid leave face the risk of expensive litigation and paying a multitude of damages available for ADA violations. As Commission Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru stated: "This case should send a wake up call to Corporate America that violating the [ADA] will result in vigorous enforcement by the EEOC. The ADA has been the law of the land for nearly two decades now, and employers simply have no excuses for failing to abide by its provisions."
It appears that Mr. Ishimaru's bark is not without bite. The EEOC recently filed another class action lawsuit against grocery chain Supervalu, Inc., alleging that its leave and disability policies violate the ADA. According to the EEOC, the company violated federal law by, among other things, prohibiting disabled employees who were on one-year paid disability leave or eligible for it from returning to work unless they could do so without accommodation. The EEOC alleges that employees who were determined to have physical or mental restrictions at the end of the one-year period were terminated.
Employers who have stringent medical leave and leave-related termination policies should consider revising them in order to steer clear of these sorts of expensive and time-consuming lawsuits. For example, an employer could revise its employment agreements and handbooks to include language such as: "A qualified employee who has become unable to perform the essential functions of his job because of disability will be terminated only if it does not appear that there is any reasonable accommodation that the employer can make, including providing the employee with extended leaves of absence that will enable the employee to perform the essential functions of his job." Hard-line policies that are not tailored to the individual circumstances of a disabled employee's request for a reasonable accommodation are bound to eventually run afoul of the ADA. If you have any questions or concerns about your company's policies as they relate to the ADA, you should consult with your attorney.
The information in this Client Alert is a summary of often complex legal issues and may not cover all of the "fine points" of a specific situation or court jurisdiction. Accordingly, it is not intended to be legal advice, which should always be obtained in consultation with an attorney. |
