Skip to main content

EEOC: FedEx Allegedly Discriminatory Towards Deaf and Hard of Hearing Employees


Earlier this month, the EEOC filed suit against FedEx and charged that the company violated the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") by discriminating against a large class of deaf and hard of hearing package handlers and job applicants for several years.  The suit came about as a result of 19 charges filed throughout the country that cited discrimination against deaf and hard of hearing employees by FedEx.

The EEOC alleged in the present suit that FedEx failed to provide needed accommodations such as a sign language interpretation and closed captioned training videos during the mandatory initial tour of facilities and new-hire orientation.  FedEx also allegedly failed to provide accommodations to these employees during staff, performance, and safety meetings.  The EEOC further charged that FedEx failed to provide needed equipment substitutes and modifications for deaf and hard of hearing package handlers.  

This alleged conduct, if found to be true, violated the ADA which prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of disability.  The ADA requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for applicants and employees with a disability, unless the employer can show that providing the accommodation would be an undue hardship.

Interesting enough, this alleged discriminatory conduct took place all over the country, including California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, and West Virgina, among a handful of other states. 


More information can be found here:  http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/10-10-14.cfm

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more