On October 11, 2023, the Fifth Circuit issued the first decision applying its broadened standard for Title VII claims in Narayanann v. Midwestern State University. The unanimous three judge panel ruled that a Malaysian professor could pursue his race-based case against a Texas university when his request to teach summer courses was rejected.
Under the Fifth Circuit’s new standard, a plaintiff’s Title VII claim can survive a motion to dismiss by pleading adverse actions with respect to the “terms, conditions, or privileges of employment” without showing that their ...
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently proposed regulations (the “Proposed Rule”) to implement the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), which requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for additional conditions relating to pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions. Issued on August 11, 2023, the Proposed Rule is currently open for public comment, and has, as of this writing, already received more than 40,440 public submissions responding to the EEOC’s proposal. Many remarks address the fact that the EEOC included ...
On June 30, 2023, the Supreme Court of the United States declined to weigh in on whether gender dysphoria can qualify as a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), allowing to stand the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Williams v. Kincaid, which extended ADA protection to transgender people experiencing gender dysphoria.
As the first federal appellate decision of its kind, Williams had — and will continue to have — a significant impact on employers (covered by Title I of the ADA), and places of public accommodations (covered by Title III of the ADA).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently published updated guidance titled, “Hearing Disabilities in the Workplace and the Americans with Disabilities Act” (the Guidance), explaining how the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) applies to job applicants and employees with hearing disabilities. The Guidance provides several new and updated examples regarding medical information employers may request and use, and reasonable accommodations for hearing disabilities that reflect technological and medical advancements since the EEOC issued its initial guidance in 2014.
Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), employers do not have to excuse an employee from performing an essential function of a job as a reasonable accommodation. Several courts have found that a job duty is an essential function where an employee performs it up to twenty percent of the time, particularly where the job description suggests that an employee must be able to perform it. The Eleventh Circuit has recently gone in a different direction. In Brown v. Advanced Concept Innovations, Inc., the Eleventh Circuit held that such a function was not essential, and thus, an employer violated Florida’s anti-discrimination law (which courts interpret consistently with the ADA) by failing to excuse an employee from performing it. While Brown may arguably be an outlier, it reinforces the importance of maintaining accurate and up-to-date job descriptions.
It is time to update your workplace signage. On October 19, 2022, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued a new workers’ rights poster, which it quickly revised and re-issued on October 20, 2022. The new “Know Your Rights” poster replaces the EEOC’s “Equal Employment Opportunity is the Law” poster, which had been in place for more than a decade, and it features several substantive changes.
For more than two and a half years, employers across the country have navigated a nuanced web of legal requirements and guidance to safely operate during the global COVID-19 pandemic. Recent updates to the legal landscape at the federal, state, and local level, however, have left many employers asking: is the COVID-19 pandemic finally over? For now, the answer remains “no.” This post discusses three key reasons why employers should continue to operate with the pandemic in mind.
On August 16, 2022, in Williams v. Kincaid, the Fourth Circuit held that gender dysphoria can qualify as a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”). This is the first federal appellate decision which extends the ADA’s protections to transgender people experiencing gender dysphoria and it will have a significant impact on all entities covered by the ADA, including employers (covered by Title I of the ADA), and public accommodations (covered by Title III of the ADA). Prior to this holding, several of the district courts have come down both ways on the issue.
On July 12, 2022, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) yet again updated its COVID-19 FAQs, revising earlier guidance about worksite screening through viral testing for COVID-19, modifying some Q&As, and making various generally non-substantive editorial changes throughout. According to the EEOC, it revised the guidance in light of the evolving circumstances of the pandemic. Here’s a run-down of the substantive changes in this latest iteration of “What You Should Know About COVID-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Laws.”
Last week, in Winegard v. Newsday LLC, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York issued a decision that may finally tee up the issue of website accessibility to be directly addressed by the Second Circuit and provided businesses without a brick and mortar presence with unexpected relief by dismissing a serial plaintiff’s putative class action lawsuit alleging that a newspaper’s failure to provide closed captions of online videos for individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“Title III” or ...
On May 14, 2021, the United States House of Representatives passed the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (“PWFA” or “HR 1065”) for a second time. With a vote of 315-101, including support from all House Democrats and 99 Republicans, the PWFA now awaits Senate consideration.
As previously reported, the House had originally passed the PWFA on September 14, 2020 (“HR 2694”). While members of congress have introduced versions of the PWFA each term since 2012, last year was the first approval. After HR 2694 passed the House last September, by a vote of 329-73, the Senate did not ...
Many employers have established wellness programs to promote employee health and, in doing so, help counter the ever increasing costs associated with employer-sponsored health benefit plans. Often employers want to establish programs that provide employees with incentives to achieve certain health outcomes, such as smoking cessation or weight loss. Employers must exercise caution in creating such health-contingent wellness programs, which necessarily require employees to disclose health information, because the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the ...
Although cannabis (marijuana) remains an illegal substance under federal law, companies in the cannabis industry are not exempt from complying with federal laws in general. A recent flurry of complaints filed in federal courts and with federal administrative agencies have highlighted the obligation of companies in the cannabis industry to comply with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (the “ADEA”), and the Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”). These employers must also remain compliant ...
After repeated introductions over the course of several years in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate, on September 14, 2020, the House passed HR 2694, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (“PWFA”). The stated purpose of the legislation is to “eliminate discrimination and promote women’s health and economic security by ensuring reasonable workplace accommodations for workers whose ability to perform the functions of a job are limited by pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition.” If passed by the Senate and signed into law, the Act would ...
As summer kicks into high gear, and the Americans with Disabilities Act's 30th anniversary looms large at the end of this month, businesses in many jurisdictions are in the process of gradually reopening to the public.
And if the long and difficult spring wasn't trying enough, businesses now face yet another challenge — balancing maintaining the safety of employees and patrons against complying with Title III of the ADA, and applicable state and local laws, which can significantly vary depending on the jurisdiction.
While in many ways the world keeps changing, some things never ...
On May 5, 2020, and again on May 7, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “EEOC”) updated its technical assistance for employers, “What You Should Know About COVID-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Laws.”
The EEOC has updated its guidance multiple times since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Most recently, on April 17, the EEOC provided guidance on employers’ reasonable accommodation obligations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”) and included a section on “Return to Work” issues (discussed here). On ...
On the heels of adding Return to Work guidance to its technical assistance for employers, “What You Should Know About COVID-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Law” (discussed here), on April 23, 2020 the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) issued an update addressing COVID-19 testing by employers. This latest guidance acknowledges that COVID-19 presents a direct threat to the health of others sufficient to justify testing. It cautions, however, that employers should only use tests that are “accurate and reliable.” Specifically ...
On April 17, 2020, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) once again updated its technical assistance for employers, titled “What You Should Know About COVID-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Laws.”
Previously, the EEOC (i) on March 17, 2020, issued initial guidance on COVID-19 in a series of Frequently Asked Questions (“FAQs”) (discussed here) (ii) on March 19, updated its publication titled “Pandemic Preparedness in the Workplace and the Americans With Disabilities Act,” to address issues specifically concerning ...
On March 17, 2020, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) posted an article on its website, “What You Should Know About the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and COVID-19.” The article confirms that workplace anti-discrimination laws enforced by the EEOC remain applicable, but that nothing in those laws interferes with or prevents “employers from following the guidelines and suggestions made by the CDC or state/local public health authorities about steps employers should take regarding COVID-19.”
In addition, the article provides a link to guidance the ...
It is no secret that businesses have long been awaiting a court decision that would help stem the surging tide of website accessibility cases – over a thousand of which have been filed in the Southern District of New York over the last two years. While the S.D.N.Y.’s recent decision dismissing a website accessibility complaint in Himelda Mendez v. Apple, Inc., 18-cv-07550 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y. March 28, 2019) may not have gone as far as businesses would have hoped, it is nonetheless an important victory. Ideally, by requiring greater effort from the plaintiff’s bar to successfully ...
In recent years, the use of wearable devices, such as smartwatches and Fitbits, has gained popularity not only with the general public and consumers but also among employers as a way to encourage workers to maintain healthier habits and, in turn, help reduce health care costs. Increasingly, companies are distributing wearable devices to employees as part of workplace wellness programs. According to one estimate, nearly half of employers that have a workplace wellness program use fitness trackers.[1] This trend shows little sign of abating. The data collected from these ...
The EEOC announced a rule change that will more than double the maximum fine for violating Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) notice posting requirements. Under the new rule, which is projected to become effective the first week of July, employers will face a maximum penalty of $525 per violation -- up from $210.
While most retailers undoubtedly know they must have notices, where the notices are posted matters. The regulations require that they be in a prominent and accessible place where notices to employees ...
[caption id="attachment_1842" align="alignright" width="113"] Frank C. Morris, Jr.[/caption]
In recent years, employers have increasingly turned to web based recruiting technologies and online applications. For some potential job applicants, including individuals with disabilities, such as those who are blind or have low vision, online technologies for seeking positions can prove problematic. For example, some recruiting technologies and web-based job applications may not work for individuals with disabilities who use screen readers to access information on the ...
Our colleague Frank C. Morris, Jr., attorney at Epstein Becker Green, has a post on the Financial Services Employment Law blog that will be of interest to many of our readers in the technology industry: "New Online Recruiting Accessibility Tool Could Help Forestall ADA Claims by Applicants With Disabilities."
Following is an excerpt:
In recent years, employers have increasingly turned to web based recruiting technologies and online applications. For some potential job applicants, including individuals with disabilities, such as those who are blind or have low vision, online ...
Our colleague Frank C. Morris, Jr., attorney at Epstein Becker Green, has a post on the Financial Services Employment Law blog that will be of interest to many of our readers in the retail industry: "New Online Recruiting Accessibility Tool Could Help Forestall ADA Claims by Applicants With Disabilities."
Following is an excerpt:
In recent years, employers have increasingly turned to web based recruiting technologies and online applications. For some potential job applicants, including individuals with disabilities, such as those who are blind or have low vision, online ...
Our colleague Joshua A. Stein has a Retail Labor and Employment Law Blog post that will be of interest to many of our technology industry readers: “Defending Against Website Accessibility Claims: Recent Decisions Suggest the Primary Jurisdiction Doctrine Is Unlikely to Serve As Businesses’ Silver Bullet.”
Following is an excerpt:
For businesses hoping to identify an avenue to quickly and definitively defeat the recent deluge of website accessibility claims brought by industrious plaintiff’s firms, advocacy groups, and government regulators in the initial ...
Our colleague Joshua A. Stein has a Retail Labor and Employment Law Blog post that will be of interest to many of our financial services industry readers: “Defending Against Website Accessibility Claims: Recent Decisions Suggest the Primary Jurisdiction Doctrine Is Unlikely to Serve As Businesses’ Silver Bullet.”
Following is an excerpt:
For businesses hoping to identify an avenue to quickly and definitively defeat the recent deluge of website accessibility claims brought by industrious plaintiff’s firms, advocacy groups, and government regulators in the ...
Our colleague Joshua A. Stein has a Retail Labor and Employment Law Blog post that will be of interest to many of our hospitality industry readers: “Defending Against Website Accessibility Claims: Recent Decisions Suggest the Primary Jurisdiction Doctrine Is Unlikely to Serve As Businesses’ Silver Bullet.”
Following is an excerpt:
For businesses hoping to identify an avenue to quickly and definitively defeat the recent deluge of website accessibility claims brought by industrious plaintiff’s firms, advocacy groups, and government regulators in the initial ...
[caption id="" align="alignright" width="120"] Joshua A. Stein[/caption]
For businesses hoping to identify an avenue to quickly and definitively defeat the recent deluge of website accessibility claims brought by industrious plaintiff’s firms, advocacy groups, and government regulators in the initial stages of litigation, recent news out of the District of Massachusetts – rejecting technical/jurisdictional arguments raised by Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology – provides the latest roadblock.
In National Association of the Deaf ...
The United States Department of Justice recently released technical guidelines aimed at cur”tail”ing proliferating efforts purporting to expand the meaning of “service animal” under the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Under the ADA, public accommodations (e.g. restaurants, hotels, retail establishments, theaters, and concert halls) must permit the use of service animals by disabled individuals. These technical guidelines take aim at increasing claims that a variety of animals (e.g. a pigs) are service animals because they provide emotional ...
On March 5, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion in Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc., 2015 WL 925586 (9th Cir. Mar. 5, 2015) that provides retailers with useful insight into how to manage the issue of “temporary obstructions” to accessible routes under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“Title III”).
Title III’s overarching obligations that retailers provide individuals with disabilities with full and equal enjoyment of their goods and services and engage in ongoing barrier removal include the requirement to ...
When acquiring or managing a restaurant or hotel, many owners and operators overlook the significant and costly implications that compliance under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act could have on the hotel’s bottom line in the future. Because of the proliferation in drive-by lawsuits from professional plaintiffs and U.S. Department of Justice investigations across the country, any hospitality company considering a new ownership or management agreement of a lodging or restaurant facility should closely evaluate and consider the state of ADA ...
Kara M. Maciel, Member of the Firm and co-editor of the Hospitality Labor and Employment Law blog will participate in a panel discussion at the Hospitality Law Conference on February 10, 2014 in Houston, Texas. In this featured panel - "Deciphering Government Regulations (ACA, ADA, WARN Act, Sanctioned Person/Entity Challenges) and Their Impact on Management Agreements", Kara will speak on the following areas affecting hospitality employers:
- Provide an overview of the federal WARN Act, such as the threshold requirements for coverage under WARN; when and to whom hotels must ...
By Frank C. Morris, Jr. and Jordan B. Schwartz
An employer's wellness program—despite certain "penalty" provisions—was recently held not to be discriminatory under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh 
Circuit in Seff v. Broward County. The Eleventh Circuit found the wellness program, sponsored by Broward County, Florida ("County"), was established as a term of the County's insured group health plan and, as such, fell under the ADA's bona fide benefit plan "safe harbor" provision. This ruling is welcome news for employers with or considering wellness programs.
However, if the County's wellness program had not been found to be a part of the County's health benefits plan, then potential plaintiffs or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") would likely have argued that the wellness program runs afoul of the EEOC's views on "voluntariness" requirements for employer-sponsored wellness programs.
The ADA's Impact on Wellness Programs
Wellness initiatives seek to boost employee productivity and reduce both direct and indirect medical costs, which are desirable outcomes for employers. Employer-sponsored wellness programs have grown exponentially over the past decade, as employers have increased their focus on controlling health care costs and improving the overall safety and health of employees. According to recent studies, approximately 46% of participating employers had implemented wellness programs. Despite the growing popularity and positive aspects of wellness programs, legal uncertainties surrounding these programs—including restrictions imposed by the ADA, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act ("GINA"), and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act ("HIPAA")—have presented obstacles to their implementation and growth.
Certain ADA restrictions have contributed to many employers declining to start wellness programs. Specifically, the ADA prohibits employers from making disability-related inquiries or requiring medical examinations of prospective or current employees unless they are job-related or subject to a business necessity exception. On the other hand, voluntary medical exams are permitted so long as the information obtained is kept confidential and not used to discriminate. There is little guidance, however, either from the courts or the EEOC, analyzing whether an employer-sponsored wellness program that encourages participation by providing incentives, or penalizes non-participation, can be considered "voluntary" and therefore permissible under the ADA.
The ADA has certain safe harbors for insurers and bona fide benefit plans that exempt such programs from ADA restrictions. Under these safe harbors, employers, insurers, and plan administrators are permitted to establish a health insurance plan that is "bona fide" based on underwriting risks, classifying risks, or administering such risks that are based on or not inconsistent with state law. Thus, if a wellness program qualifies for the ADA's safe harbor provision, an employer need not worry whether such program otherwise would have been considered voluntary. Notably, the EEOC has not addressed wellness programs and the ADA's safe harbor provision.
Seff v. Broward County
In October 2009, the County adopted a wellness program for its employees as part of its health plan open enrollment. The wellness program consisted of three parts: (1) a biometric screening consisting of a "finger stick" to measure glucose and cholesterol; (2) disease management for five specified conditions; and (3) an online Health Risk Assessment ("HRA"). Participation in the program was not required as a condition of participation in the County's health plan, but employees who did not undergo the screening or complete the HRA incurred a $20 bi-weekly charge subtracted from their paychecks.
In response to this program, current and former County employees who enrolled in the County's health insurance plan and incurred the $20 bi-weekly fee filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. They alleged that the wellness program's biometric screening and online HRA violated the ADA's prohibition on non-voluntary medical examinations and disability-related inquiries. The County argued that its wellness program was part of its health plan and, as such, fell under the ADA's safe harbor provision.
The primary question addressed by the district court was whether the wellness program was a "term" of a bona fide benefit plan, which would allow it to come within the ADA's safe harbor provision for such plans. In granting summary judgment to the County, the district court determined that the program was indeed a "term" of the County's group health plan based on the following three factors:
- The health insurer offered the wellness program as part of its contract to provide insurance, and paid for and administered the program;
- The wellness program was available only to plan enrollees; and
- The county presented a description of the wellness program in at least two employee benefit plan handouts.
Blog Editors
Recent Updates
- Podcast: Navigating Physician Non-Compete Litigation – Employment Law This Week
- Maryland Expected to Expand Pay Transparency Requirements in Fall 2024
- Video: Union Reps at OSHA Inspections, New COVID-19 Guidance, and Minimum Wage Updates - Employment Law This Week
- Fair Credit Reporting Act Preempts State Law Defamation Claim Over Background Check
- Video: New DOL Rules, U.S. Government Changes Race and Ethnicity Categorization - Employment Law This Week