Social Security Administration Reprimands Flatulent Federal Worker: Uncontrolled Odiferous Emissions Deemed “Unbecoming a Federal Employee”

By Jim Cline and Mitchel Riese

 A recent news story that garnered national attention concerned the discipline of a Social Security employee by the Social Security Administration, who reprimanded the employee for excessive workplace flatulence.  The reprimand was delivered to the employee in a five-page letter that included a log of representative dates and times when the employee was recorded, “releasing the awful and unpleasant odor” in his Baltimore office. After the employee filed a grievance over the reprimand, the Social Security Administration withdrew it.

[Read more...]

Forced Retirement of Police Officer for Anxiety Disorder Improper

By David E. Worley

In Keseker v. Marin Community College District (27 AD Cases 421 (N.D. Cal. 2012)), the California Federal District Court refused to dismiss a lawsuit brought by a former police officer who claimed he was unfairly forced to retire because of an anxiety disorder that made him not fit for duty.  He claimed the employer violated the ADA in failing to provide him with reasonable accommodations, failing to engage in the interactive process, wrongful termination, and discriminating against him based on his disability.  [Read more...]

Failure to Accommodate Detention Worker Claim Dismissed When Physical Limitation Disabled Worker from Performing Physical Restraint

By David E. Worley

In Wardia v. Justice & Pub. Safety Cabinet Dep’t of Juvenile Justice, (27 AD Case 385 (6th Cir. 2013), the  Sixth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals granted summary judgment on a failure to accommodate claim of a former juvenile detention worker who was physically unable to perform a restraint on an inmate.  Because the ability to physically restrain, while rarely used, is an essential function of the job, the plaintiff’s request to have other more physically capable employees perform restrains, the court ruled, was unreasonable.  Further, the plaintiff’s request to be put on a light duty monitoring position, the court concluded, was unreasonable, as that position is rotating and temporary, and the ADA does not require converting a temporary position to a permanent one for the sake of accommodating a disability.

[Read more...]

Interference and Retaliation Claims Under FMLA Survive Based on Proximity between Officer Request for Leave and Termination

By David Worley

In Dove v. Community Education Centers, a Pennsylvania federal district court held that a terminated corrections officer could proceed with his retaliation claim, when he was terminated after he had requested leave for his symptoms of depression.  The court also upheld an interference claim against the employer for not informing him of his available FMLA leave.  While the court was not deciding the merits of the claims, it was deciding, upon a summary judgment motion, whether the claims were sufficient to proceed to a trial. [Read more...]

Commissioner’s “Conniving Ivan” Comment Not an ADA Violation, Connecticut Federal Court Finds

By Kate Acheson

In Fossesigurani v. City of Bridgeport Fire Dept., the Connecticut Federal Court dismissed an assistant city fire chief’s American with Disabilities Act claims, arising from a fire commissioner’s allegedly derogatory comment.  The court found the comment alone was insufficient proof of an adverse employment action, or a hostile work environment under the ADA.

[Read more...]

A Case of Mistaken Disability: Officer’s Good Faith Belief Saves ADA Retaliation Claim

By Kate Acheson

In Forgione v. City of New York, a New York District Court found that an officer mistakenly perceived as suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”), only had sufficient proof to show “retaliation,” but not “discrimination” under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), where the Department had sent the officer for a fitness for duty evaluation.  The Court concluded that evidence existed of a retaliatory intent in the compelled examination, but that a psychological examination did not constitute an “adverse action” under the ADA.

[Read more...]

Concerned Employer may have Violated the ADA by Ordering Employee to Seek Counseling, Sixth Circuit Finds

By Kate Acheson

In Kroll v. White Lake Ambulance Authority, the Sixth Circuit found that an employer’s order for an Emergency Medical Technician (“EMT”) to attend counseling for suspected depression may have been an impermissible “medical examination” in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).  The case was remanded to determine whether an ADA exception allowing “job related” medical examinations that are consistent with a “business necessity” applies. [Read more...]

Eighth Circuit Rejects Officer’s First Amendment Claims Arising from Completed Police Report

By Kate Acheson

A Missouri Police Officer who was passed over for a promotion and other positive job benefits, claimed the City was retaliating against him for reporting City official corruption in an internal investigation report.  In Buehrle v. City of O’Fallon, Mo., the Eighth Circuit concluded that the First Amendment did not protect the Officer’s speech, which was made in the course of his official duties, and upheld a summary judgment dismissing his claims.

[Read more...]

Testing the Limits of the ADA on Prescription Drug Use: EEOC Reaches Significant Settlement on Workplace Testing for Prescription Drugs

By Cynthia McNabb

Are you required to drug test in order to keep your job?  In addition to drug testing, are you required to disclose what prescription medication you are taking and for what purpose?  If you answered yes to any of these questions, a recent EEOC settlement reached, may be of interest to you.

[Read more...]

EITHER TAKE OUR WELLNESS EXAMS OR “COUGH UP” THE CASH: 11TH Circuit Rules Employer Mandated Work Wellness Programs Fall Within “Safe Harbor” Provisions of (ADA)

By Cynthia McNabb

As open-enrollment season for health insurance approaches, employees may see (if they have not already) options for reducing their health insurance costs by voluntarily enrolling in an employer wellness program.  Alternatively, your union may have even entered into an agreement with your employer that requires you to participate in an employer wellness program, in order to maintain your health insurance.  Billed as your opportunity to save money, participation in employer wellness programs are, in reality, merely fee-shifting endeavors that penalize employees with higher deductibles, higher co-pays, or fees for failure to participate.  Unfortunately, trying to sort out what your rights are with respect to these wellness programs under the ADA, HIPAA and GINA ** (“Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act) is a complicated undertaking.

[Read more...]