The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has filed a lawsuit against Walmart alleging that the company violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) when it failed to provide a reasonable accommodation to an employee with a disability that worked in Augusta.

According to the EEOC, the employee that Walmart discriminated against developed a disability which rendered her unable to perform any jobs except greeter and fitting room associate. The employee worked in the Augusta store and there were no open greeter or fitting room associate positions in that store. As such, Walmart terminated the employee.

The EEOC argues that Walmart had an obligation, under the ADA, to reassign the employee to another store if another store had open greeter or fitting room associate positions. As it so happens, according to the EEOC, the Waterville EEOC store had an open fitting room associate position that the employee who got fired could have filled.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has sued a Texas company that fired three brothers because they had a blood disorder, hemophilia A. Hemophilia A runs through these brothers’ family and requires them to undergo expensive medical treatment if they suffer a scrape or other injury that causes bleeding.

The president and vice president of the company, Signature Industrial Services, LLC (“SIS”), allegedly instructed the brothers’ manager to fire them because the president and vice president learned how the company’s health insurance rates would spike if SIS employed the brothers. One manager allegedly refused to fire the brothers but when he left SIS, the president and vice president got another manager to fire the brothers. This manager told the brothers that SIS decided to let them go in connection with a reduction in force, but SIS laid off no other workers at the time it terminated the brothers.

The factors that led SIS to allegedly discriminate against these brothers are very common in disability discrimination cases. Companies often discriminate against workers with disabilities because of the actual or perceived additional costs that come with employing a person with a disability. These additional costs are often not a defense to discrimination unless the employer can show that the costs pose an undue hardship on it.

Earlier this month, in a landmark decision for proponents of marijuana legalization, the Massachusetts Supreme Court held that an employer who fired an employee because she used medical marijuana to treat her Crohn’s disease may have violated the state’s disability discrimination law. The employee in the case, Cristina Barbuto, was up front with her employer, Advantage Sales and Marketing (“Advantage”), and disclosed that her doctor had prescribed medical marijuana which she used a few times per week at home; she never came to work intoxicated. Some managers with Advantage were allegedly accepting of Barbuto’s marijuana use but a human resources representative ultimately fired Barbuto because marijuana use violates federal law.

Advantage’s attorney argued that allowing an employee to use marijuana cannot be a reasonable accommodation because marijuana use violates federal law. The court rejected this argument. It determined that, even though marijuana use violates federal law, allowing someone with a disability to use it for medicinal purposes could be a required reasonable accommodation because Massachusetts state law permits medical marijuana use.

In reaching its decision, the court noted that the vast majority of states permit medical marijuana use and that fact weighed on its decision. The court stressed that “to declare an accommodation for medical marijuana to be per se unreasonable out of respect for Federal law would not be respectful of the recognition of Massachusetts voters, shared by the legislatures of voters in the vast majority of States, that marijuana has accepted medical use for some patients suffering from debilitating medical conditions.”

Last month, the Massachusetts Supreme Court held that a jury could reasonably determine that the Boston Police Department (BPD) discriminated against one of its police officers, Sean Gannon, because he has disabilities related to a brain injury. Gannon suffered the brain injury from his experience competing in mixed martial arts (MMA) professional fights. His brain injury resulted in impairments such as sleep apnea, speech problems, and difficulty focusing. Due to these impairments, BPD removed Gannon from patrol duty and placed him on desk duty.

Gannon underwent treatment for his brain injury and his condition improved over time. Eventually, multiple doctors cleared him to return to patrol duty. To reach their decision, these doctors relied on, among other things, the results of a simulated job test that Gannon successfully completed. This simulated job test included a “shoot/don’t shoot” target practice drill and other simulated police officer tasks. Despite Gannon’s ability to complete the simulated job test and the clearance he received from his doctors, BPD continued to refuse to return him to patrol duty. As a result, he sued BPD for disability discrimination.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court held that Gannon had enough evidence to persuade a reasonable jury that he could perform the essential tasks of patrol duty and that BPD violated his rights when it refused to return him to patrol duty. The court sent the case back to the trial court for a trial. At trial, the case will likely hinge on which side wins the “battle of the experts.” Gannon will present expert testimony that he was capable of performing patrol duty and BPD will present its own expert testimony to the contrary.  Gannon’s own testimony will probably also be key.  The jury will likely factor in how well Gannon testifies when they determine whether he can perform the essential functions of patrol duty.

The U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that a disability discrimination lawsuit should be dismissed because the employee who filed the case failed to provide her employer with sufficient information to support her request for a reasonable accommodation. This case illustrates one of the pitfalls that employees with disabilities face and should serve as a cautionary tale for workers with disabilities.

The employee in this case, Ms. Ortiz-Martinez, worked as a social worker for a health care service provider named Fresenius. During the course of her employment, Ortiz-Martinez suffered a hand injury and required medical leave from work while she received treatment. Eventually, her doctor cleared her to return to work while she continued to receive treatment for her injury.  Her doctor provided her with a note for Fresenius that described the injuries she suffered, which included a sprain and carpal tunnel syndrome. However, the note did not describe, with particularity, Ortiz-Martinez’s physical limitations or what accommodations she needed.

Fresenius asked Ortiz-Martinez to provide further information about how her injuries limited her physical capability so that they could determine what accommodations were necessary. Fresenius would not let her return to work until she provided it with this information. So, Ortiz-Martinez got a new note from her doctor. The new note elaborated on Ortiz-Martinez’s physical limitations but it still did not say what accommodations she needed. After several more unsuccessful attempts to get information on the accommodations that Ortiz-Martinez required, including a request made directly to her doctor, Fresenius fired her.

A federal court in Connecticut has held that a jury could reasonably find that a cellphone company doing business as Verizon Wireless discriminated against an employee because of his disability. The employee, Edward Green, had a history of chronic back pain stemming from a back injury that required surgery. He worked for Verizon Wireless as a customer service representative who fielded customer calls and attempted to resolve their complaints.

Mr. Green suffered an exacerbation of his back pain that required him to take leave. He was worried about taking leave because his supervisor had told him in the past that employees who took sick leave could be fired and if anyone had any complaints about that, they could be fired for their complaints. While on leave, Mr. Green’s supervisor told him multiple times not to take too much leave and that he could be fired. Eventually that is exactly what happened—Verizon Wireless fired Mr. Green while he was on leave.

Verizon Wireless argued to the court that it fired Mr. Green because he experienced five disconnected calls and it fired any customer service representative with five disconnected calls. But Mr. Green said no one ever communicated this supposed rule to him; it also did not communicate the rule to other employees; and Verizon Wireless never put the rule in writing. Verizon Wireless presented evidence of other customer service representatives who it claims it fired for violating this rule but many of them had significantly more than five disconnected calls. Due to this evidence, and other evidence presented, the court determined that a reasonable jury could determine that Verizon Wireless did not actually terminate Mr. Green for violating this alleged rule and, instead, fired him for taking medical leave for his back pain.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently issued new guidance for workers with mental health conditions like PTSD and depression. The guidance discusses how the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) protects workers with mental health conditions and what the ADA requires employers to do to accommodate workers with mental health conditions.

The guidance makes clear that employers have an obligation to provide reasonable accommodations for workers with mental health conditions if the worker needs such an accommodation to do her job. The guidance explains that a “reasonable accommodation is some type of change in the way things are normally done at work” such as “altered break and work schedules (e.g., scheduling work around therapy appointments)” and “changes in supervisory methods (e.g., written instructions from a supervisor who usually does not provide them).”

If you ask for a reasonable accommodation for a mental health condition, your employer may ask you to obtain information from your health care provider to prove that you have a mental health condition and that you need a reasonable accommodation. The EEOC’s guidance includes a link to a resource that you can provide to your health care provider to assist her in providing this information to your employer.