After three years, the EEOC and HonorHealth have settled claims of ADA violations. A federal judge has approved the $1.75 million settlement of a case brought in 2020 by the Equal Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), which accused Scottsdale Healthcare Network, which was doing business as HonorHealth (“HonorHealth”), of failing to provide employees reasonable accommodations, including failing to provide reassignment and permit modified work schedules, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).[1]

Background

At the heart of the EEOC’s case was long-time employee Angela Carter (“Carter”), who was severely injured at work. Those injuries affected her ability to lift. Carter’s request for a reasonable accommodation was denied by HonorHealth. Instead, the company gave her thirty days to find a new job within HonorHealth or face termination.[2]

Carter applied for a number of jobs within HonorHealth but was unable to secure employment. As a result, she was fired. The EEOC then pursued this case, and asserted: “When employees request reasonable accommodations that would allow them to perform their jobs, the ADA requires employers to engage in an interactive process with those employees and provide a reasonable accommodation unless there is an undue hardship. If current employees become unable to do their job with or without a reasonable accommodation due to their medical conditions, employers are required to provide reassignment to another job if there are open positions they are qualified for.”[3] The EEOC alleged HonorHealth failed to comply with these requirements and sought lost wages, compensatory damages, and punitive damages.[4]

The Settlement

HonorHealth denied the allegations that it violated the ADA but cited their desire to resolve the issues to avoid the time, expense, and uncertainty of further litigation.[5] In addition to the monetary settlement to those employees who were denied reasonable accommodations, HonorHealth agreed to update its policies for handling requests for reasonable accommodations and its training to ensure all of its employees understand their rights under the ADA.[6]

Takeaway

The ADA requires employers to engage in the interactive process with employees seeking a reasonable accommodation. Such accommodations include assistive devices, reassignment, and modified work schedules. If the employer has open positions which meet the criteria for the requested reasonable accommodation, the ADA requires the employee be reassigned. It is imperative for employers to understand the requirements of the ADA and ensure their policies follow the ADA and EEOC guidance to avoid litigation.

Keep Reading

Cannabis Workers Allege Quota to Trim 4 Pounds a Day Violates the California Labor Code The Ninth Circuit Reminds Us: Every Word Matters NO WAY, PRO SE! The Consequences of Abusing the Judicial System as a Pro Se Litigant in Colorado Victim of Financial Mismanagement or Unlawful Retaliation? New Jersey City University Program Founder Claims School Retaliated After Reporting Alleged Sexual Harassment “Real Housewives” Gets a Reality Check Missing a Chapter: Insufficiency of Expert Deposition Testimony in Medical Malpractice Litigation Crash Course: Why Summary Judgment Misses the Mark in Illinois Multi-Cause Limousine Crash Collision Bitter Truths: Lead, Cadmium, and Defective Pleadings in California Chocolate Class Action The Law of Unintended Consequences: Including Insurance Brokers in Litigation Strategy Communication May Waive the Attorney-Client Privilege

More by this author

The Ninth Circuit Reminds Us: Every Word Matters An Employer Can Benefit from Being the Most Reasonable Person in the Courtroom The Party Who Controls the Narrative Controls the Outcome in Trial $1.75 M Settlement Ends EEOC Claim Pandemic Nightmare: Horse Racing Track Wants Coverage for COVID Business Losses I (May) Survive: A Respondeat Superior Claim May Survive Despite Dismissal of a Claim Against an Employee Arizona Construction Lenders Beware – You Might Not Be Insured Against a Senior Mechanics’ Lien! Arizona Court of Appeals Insulates County from Liability for Deputy Sheriff’s Negligence Arizona Court of Appeals Clarifies the Burden of Proof in a Motion for Summary Judgment

Sources

[1] EEOC v. Scottsdale Healthcare Hospitals d/b/a HonorHealth, Civil Action No. 2:20-cv-01899-MTL

[2] https://www.law360.com/employment-authority/articles/1722719

[3] Id.

[4] https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/eeoc-sues-scottsdale-healthcare-hospitals-honorhealth-disability-discrimination

[5] https://www.law360.com/employment-authority/articles/1722719

[6] https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/eeoc-and-honorhealth-resolve-disability-discrimination-lawsuit