In November 2023, the E.E.O.C. announced that it had reached a settlement with Citizens Bank, N.A., in which Citizens Bank agreed to pay $100,000 to resolve claims of disability discrimination brought by the E.E.O.C. on behalf of a former employee. The same week, Papa John’s Pizza settled a similar lawsuit brought by the E.E.O.C. on behalf of a former disabled employee for $175,000. Both cases stemmed from the employers refusing to grant, or even consider, their former disabled employees’ requests for accommodations. In addition to paying the monetary settlement amounts, both employers became subject to consent decrees requiring updated training, policies surrounding the providing of reasonable accommodations, and ongoing monitoring by the E.E.O.C. to ensure compliance for at least two years.
What could Citizens Bank and Papa John’s have done to preemptively avoid these lawsuits and their lasting impacts? A closer look at the facts of each indicates that, had the employers implemented proper training on their obligations under the Americans with Disabilities Act’s to provide reasonable accommodations to disabled employees, litigation may have been avoided. Neither case involved an unusual set of circumstances or unanswered questions in the realm of ADA jurisprudence.
Papa John’s Pizza ran into trouble when it failed to accommodate a newly hired employee who was blind and relied on a service dog to get to work. In response to the employee’s request to bring his service dog with to work, Papa John’s terminated his employment prior to his first shift. Similarly, Citizens Bank refused to reassign an employee who had developed an anxiety disorder as a result of his job fielding calls from angry customers. Instead of engaging in the interactive process upon receiving the employee’s request to be reassigned, Citizen’s Bank returned him to the same position despite several vacant positions that would have satisfied his request for accommodation. The employee was forced to resign.
Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) applies to employers with over 15 employees and was enacted with the specific purpose of ensuring that people with disabilities are afforded the same access to employment opportunities as non-disabled individuals. The ADA defines “disability” broadly and includes a physical or mental condition that substantially limits a major life activity (like walking, talking, standing, seeing, hearing, etc.) or the operation of a major bodily function (such as musculoskeletal, respiratory, circulatory, etc.). If an employee notifies their employer that they have a disability and need an accommodation, it is the employer’s obligation to consider the employee’s request rather than reject it outright. Although employers may deny a requested accommodation if it poses an undue hardship to their business, they must be able to show that the accommodation would be too difficult or expensive to provide. If an employer is concerned that a request is not reasonable, it is important that they not immediately reject it without first engaging in the interactive process. This process requires a good faith effort to consider all reasonable options that may accommodate the employee’s performing the essential functions of the job in light of the disability.
Given the facts involved in the Papa John’s and Citizens Bank lawsuits discussed above, neither employer had a legally valid argument that the requested accommodations posed an undue burden. Training supervisors and decision makers on employers’ obligations under the ADA is essential for employers who wish to operate within the confines of the ADA and avoid costly litigation. Did Papa John’s decision maker simply assume that bringing a dog into a food establishment would be unacceptable or even unlawful under state law and reject the employee’s request as a result? Perhaps. Had they been properly trained to recognize that the employee’s request implicated ADA protections, they may have taken a closer look and determined that service animals are exempt from many laws forbidding pets in public accommodations and granted the request, avoiding the entire ordeal. A similar training effort for the Citizens Bank representatives might have resulted in the decision to grant the employee’s request and transfer him to a less stressful position. Both employers would be free of years’ long consent decrees and have additional funds on hand had they implemented such simple trainings.
Sources:
https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/papa-johns-pizza-pay-175000-settle-disability-discrimination-lawsuit