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.
City of Houston v. Proler, No. 14-10-00971-CV, Texas Court of Appeals, Fourteenth District, May 31, 2012 , dur g March 2006, a capta a fire suppression unit the Houston Fire Department (HFD) responded, along with firefighters that he supervised, to a build g fire. While at the scene of the fire, the capta failed to follow orders and was found stand g a smoke-filled room. Medics at the scene determ ed that his blood pressure was low. Subsequently, at the direction of the HFD, he sought medical treatment.
In M.O.C.H.A, Soc’y, Inc. v. City of Buffalo, Nos. 11-2184-cv and 10-2168-cv, July 30, 2012, 2nd Cir.,as permitted by a state statute, in late 1997, the City of Buffalo contracted with the state of New York’s Civil Service Department (CSD) to have the CSD develop an examination to be administered to fire fighters who sought promotions to the position of fire lieutenant. In response to the request, an associate personnel examiner at CSD spent approximately three years performing a job analysis of fire fighters at all ranks in departments across the state.
In Passananti v. Cook County, No. 11-1182, Slip Opinion, July 20, 2012, 7th Cir., Beginning in 2004, over a period of approximately three years, a former director of the Day Reporting Center (DRC) in Cook County, IL, on numerous occasions, referred to the then-deputy director, Kimberly Passananti, as a “bitch.” At times, references came in face-to-face meetings between director and Ms. Passananti. On other occasions, the director made the references in front of other employees and he used the same term to refer to other women employees at the DRC.
