| Issues and Answers | ||
| Tips for rebuilding trust during a merger or acquisition | |||
|
| Test Your Human Resources Knowledge | ||
|
| Labor Law Journal Submissions | ||
|
| Human Resources Links | ||
|
| Labor Arbitrators' Awards and Biographies | ||
U.S. Master™ Wage-Hour Guide, 2009 Edition
Presents a first approach to the broad and complex controls under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and other statutes regulating employee wages and hours.
Kalil Bottling Co, a large Arizona soft drink bottling and distribution company, has agreed to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced on March 12, 2010. Kalil violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) when it fired Gerald Nez, who has diabetes, according to the lawsuit (EEOC v Kalil Bottling Co, DAriz, No CV 07-00488 TUC-BPV).
As a merchandiser, Nez was required to drive his own personal compact pickup truck to complete his duties. Despite at least four months of flawless work and an impeccable driving record, Kalil required that Nez pass a medical exam, the EEOC alleged. When the medical exam revealed that he had diabetes and was using insulin, Kalil fired him for that reason alone, the federal agency asserted.
Employer policy. For the last 30 years, Kalil has had a policy requiring all employees who drive any motor vehicles as part of their employment, even their own vehicles, to pass a federal Department of Transportation (DOT) medical exam designed for people seeking a commercial driver’s license (CDL) required for trucks over 10,000 pounds. Nez did not need a CDL to fulfill his job at Kalil, the EEOC argued.
“The DOT’s exam automatically prohibits people who use insulin from obtaining CDLs,” said Mary Jo O’Neill, the EEOC’s regional attorney in Phoenix. “That may be perfectly fine when the job requires a CDL, but Nez never needed a CDL to drive his own pickup for Kalil. Under the ADA, this policy is an unlawful qualification standard that tends to screen out individuals with disabilities, including people with diabetes.”
Firing an employee because of a disability violates Title I of the ADA, which prohibits employers from discriminating against qualified individuals with disabilities in employment, explained the EEOC. Employers may not try to get around the prohibitions against disability discrimination by relying on irrelevant qualification standards that screen out people with diabetes or any other disability, the EEOC advised.
Settlement terms. Nez is now deceased. Pursuant to the consent decree settling the suit, the company will pay $33,000 to Nez’s widow, conduct antidiscrimination training, and eliminate its policy of automatically excluding insulin-using people with diabetes from jobs involving operating motor vehicles.
“The key problem in this case is that insulin-requiring diabetes was an automatic exclusion from employment at Kalil,” said O’Neill. “The company failed to do an individualized assessment of Mr. Nez to see if, in fact, his diabetic condition made him a safety hazard. Millions of Americans use insulin and millions drive in their own car and are perfectly safe drivers.”
“We are pleased that Kalil decided to change its policy,” added EEOC Acting District Director Julie Bowman. “This outcome is a win-win. Kalil now has access to a larger pool of qualified applicants and people with disabilities have a more opportunity in the job market.”
For more information on this and other topics, consult CCH Employment Practices Guide or CCH Labor Relations.
Visit our News Library to read more news stories.
©2005-2012 CCH Incorporated or its affiliates
