Articles Posted in Employment Discrimination

With covid-19 not giving up, employment lawyers across the country, including our Long Island employment lawyers at Famighetti & Weinick PLLC, are facing questions about how the new pandemic will affect essential workers and non-essential workers who go back to work as the country adjusts to “the new normal” and the economy reopens.

In one of our previous posts, we opined that workers with generalized fear or anxiety about workplace covid-19 exposures likely were not protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). That blog assumed that only vulnerable workers, or workers with underlying medical conditions worried about contracting coronavirus, were protected under the ADA.

A recent federal court decision, however, suggests that even workers with generalized fear or anxiety about workplace covid-19 exposures may be protected under the ADA. Even though the decision was issued by a Texas district court concerning voters, the analysis may be used to extend the disability discrimination laws’ coverage for workers who lack immunity to covid-19.

When the coronavirus pandemic started taking hold in the New York region, government moved to shutdown businesses to help control the spread of the virus. New York State Governor Cuomo instituted the Pause program which required all non-essential businesses in New York to close. But, essential businesses were allowed to stay open.

Almost immediately, employment lawyers across the state, including our Long Island employment lawyers at Famighetti & Weinick PLLC, were inundated with calls from essential workers worried about contracting covid-19 from the workplace. We blogged about these concerns and also posted a video about these issues.

As New York begins to emerge from the Pause and the economy is set to re-open, questions still remain about the rights of vulnerable segments of the workforce safely returning to work and the rights of other workers who are concerned about contracting the virus. Today’s Long Island employment law blog discusses some of these concerns, with a focus on the EEOC’s latest guidance issued on May 5, 2020.

As the country begins to re-open from the coronavirus shutdown, governments and employers are working to implement procedures to protect workers, patrons, and citizens generally, from the continued threat of covid-19. Face masks and temperature checks are likely to be universally accepted requirements for businesses and workplaces. But, antibody testing is also becoming widespread and was talked about early on in the re-opening discussion as an important tool because of the possibility that it could reveal individuals who have immunity.

But, the issue of immunity has been questioned more recently. Indeed, experts have expressed uncertainty as to whether a person exposed to covid-19 can become sick with the virus again. Some reports from overseas have supported the uncertainty by claiming that individuals who recovered from coronavirus, became sick again. Further, antibody testing is more invasive than merely taking temperatures by infrared thermometer or requiring a person to wear a mask externally.

So, can employers require that employees undergo antibody testing? Antibody testing (and even temperature checks) will be considered a medical examination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The EEOC, which is responsible for guidance under the ADA, allows temperature checks to be taken of employees before they enter the workplace because of the severe risk posed by the spread of covid-19. The EEOC relies on the ADA’s permissible use of medical exams when the exam is job related and consistent with a business necessity.

Causation is part of every employment discrimination case. Causation means that there is a link between the employment action and a discriminatory reason.  For example, if a worker is fired because the worker was caught stealing from the employer, the decision to terminate the worker is legitimate, not discriminatory. But, if the employer terminates a worker because the worker is 60 years old, there is a link between the decision to terminate and a discriminatory motivation for the decision.

The law provides different standards of causation. Sometimes, discrimination must be a determinitive factor in the decision to take action against the employee, meaning that the employer would not make the same employment decision without a discriminatory animus present. This is usually referred to as “but for” causation. Other times, the law says that the discrimination can be one of many factors, usually called a mixed-motive or motivating factor standard.

Many employment discrimination laws, particularly federal laws, do not spell out which type of causation is required. So, courts are left to interpret the appropriate level of causation.  Recently, led by Supreme Court decisions, courts have been applying but-for causation to discrimination cases, except in circumstances where Congress has expressly acted to convey its intent that some other level of causation applies. Based on the decisions, we have clarity that but-for causation applies to age discrimination and retaliation claims. Motivating factor applies to federal Title VII claims (race, religion, sex, national origin).

As employment law attorneys, our email and social media is flooded with information from fellow employment lawyers about how employers should handle the coronavirus pandemic. Today’s Long Island employment law blog discusses some issues relating to how employees might handle the crisis.  Please note, this blog is informational only and should not be relied upon as legal advice, and certainly not medical advice.  The information below should be considered “food for thought.” If you have specific questions about your employment situation, we encourage you to call our lawyers, who remain available by phone throughout the crisis.

1. Listen to advice from government and medical authorities

First and foremost, pay attention to guidance given by officials from the government and from medical authorities.  Leading medical authorities include the CDC and WHO, but local health departments are also issuing guidance.  Best practices almost universally include washing hands, avoiding close contact with others, and proper hygiene including coughing and sneezing best practices. If you must report to work, continue to follow these instructions.

As coronavirus fears continue to spread throughout the country, workplaces are struggling to decide how to prevent possible outbreaks in their work forces.  Indeed, Seattle based tech giants Amazon, Google, Facebook, and Microsoft are closing offices and asking employees to work from home.  But, discussions about employees’ medical conditions necessarily invokes concerns about disability discrimination statutes, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act.

The federal government’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has issued guidance to help employers navigate the tricky waters of combating the spread of coronavirus while remaining compliant with anti-discrimination laws.  Today’s Long Island employment law blog discusses the EEOC’s guidance.

Preliminarily, the EEOC noted that while disability discrimination laws remain in effect and employers must follow these laws, the laws do not stop employers from following the CDC’s guidelines for employers.  The CDC’s guidelines include encouraging sick employees to stay home, separating sick employees upon arrival to the workplace, and reminding employees to use appropriate proper hygiene.

As Long Island employment lawyers, one of the questions we encounter is whether an employer can ask an employee for medical records. A request of this nature can implicate issues relating to disability discrimination laws, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Today’s Long Island employment law blog tries to shed some light on the issue.

Requests for Medical Records Under Anti-Discrimination Laws

The EEOC has consistently noted that employers with legitimate concerns relating to an employee’s medical condition which may impact that employee’s ability to perform the essential functions of his job, may make any inquiry into that employee’s medical history. But, that inquiry must be limited and related to the medical condition at issue.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits, among many other things, employers from discriminating against employees with disabilities. In addition to protecting employees with disabilities, the law also protects employees who associate or have a relationship with another individual who has a disability. Today’s Long Island employment law blog discusses the law concerning associational discrimination under the ADA and a recent appellate court decision related to such claims.

The explicit language of the ADA prohibits employers from denying jobs or benefits to individuals because of a known disability the individual has or because the individual is known to associate or have a relationship with another person who has a disability. In an associational discrimination disability case, plaintiffs must prove, among other elements, that an adverse employment decision was made “under circumstances” which allows an inference that the disability of a relative or associate caused the employer’s decision. One way to show this is by establishing distraction evidence. A plaintiff can show distraction with evidence that the employer was motivated to take action against the employee out of fear that the employee will not pay attention at work because of the disability of a disabled person.

In Kelleher v. Fred A. Cook, Inc., the plaintiff-employee worked as a laborer. Just months after starting work, the employee’s daughter was born with a neurological disorder. Later the next year, the employee told his supervisor about his daughter’s condition and that because of the condition, on occasion he would need to rush home to care for her. The employee alleged that after this disclosure, his work conditions deteriorated. For example, his work location changed and his coworkers were offered assignments at higher wages than he was assigned.