In Furtado v. State Personnel Board, 34 IER Cases 1585 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013), the court upheld a medical demotion of a California Correctional Lieutenant to a support position who was deemed unable to perform the physical aspects of the peace officer job after he failed the baton handling test. A California Government Code barred waiving physical requirements of peace officer jobs, the court held that, and the Lieutenant’s request to be transferred to an “Administrative Lieutenant” position was functionally a request to have those requirements waived, as all corrections officers must be able to perform the physical requirements.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
