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.
Plaintiff Tracy Joyner, a New York City Corrections Officer, filed suit against the City of New York for discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII after her supervisor made repeated sexual advances towards her. In Joyner v. City of New York, the District Court dismissed all federal claims, finding that, although Ms. Joyner was sexually harassed, the City is not liable because Ms. Joyner waited over a year before reporting the harassment.
The Colorado District Court refused to dismiss Hispanic, Deputy Sheriff Theresa Garcia’s retaliation, discrimination, and common law civil conspiracy claims in Garcia v. Arapahoe Cnty. Sheriff ’s Office, finding that these claims concerned genuine issues of material fact and could not be summarily dismissed.
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.
As suspected when the United States Supreme Court ruled in 2009, in the case of Ricci v. DeStefano, reverse discrimination cases among police and firefighters are in the headlines, with several verdicts reached favoring the plaintiffs who have brought reverse discrimination cases against their employers.
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.
In Duncan v. Dakota County, No. 11-2467, August 3, 2012 (8th Cir. 2012), Toni Duncan worked as a correctional officer for Duncan County, NE, under the supervision of Chief Deputy Sheriff Rodney Herron. After leaving the job, she sued the County and Mr. Herron officials pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. She claimed that through the actions of Mr. Herron, the county had, in the forms of sexually harassing and constructively discharging her, denied her equal protection in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
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.
In State of Ariz. v. City of Cottonwood, 115 FEP Cases 998, No. CV-11-2-1576-PHX-GMS, July 20, 2012, D. Az., sometime around 2000, as the result of agreements with the Arizona Peace Officers Standards and Training Board (AZ POST) and other law enforcement agencies in Arizona, Fitness Intervention Technologies (FIT) conducted a study for the purpose of developing a physical fitness test for law enforcement officers.
