This month, Jon Vegosen briefs us on legal developments related to the Americans with Disabilities Act, age discrimination in the workplace, and the consequences of retaliating against employees that testify.
EEOC Proposes Guidance on Amendments to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
In September, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) proposed regulations to offer guidance regarding the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA), which went into effect on January 1, 2009. The regulations are designed to help employers understand, among other things, the scope of “disabilities” as defined by the ADAAA. The EEOC is seeking comments on its proposed regulations by November 23, 2009
Previously, Supreme Court decisions had narrowly interpreted the ADA and limited the definition of the term “disability.” The ADAAA effectively reverses the Supreme Court decisions and enlarges the scope of the ADA to include more individuals by expanding the definition of the term “disabilities,” as well as, other terms such as “major life activities.” The ADAAA also directed the EEOC to produce implementing regulations that would do likewise.
For more information about the ADAAA, visit http://www.fvldlaw.com/newsletters/2009-01.htm.
Democratic Congressional Committee Chairmen Seek to Overturn Age Discrimination Decision
As previously reported in Employment Law Updates: August 2009, just before the end of the U.S. Supreme Court’s term in June, the Court held that an employee who brings a disparate impact claim for age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act has the burden of “persuading by a preponderance of evidence” that age was the only cause of the employer’s adverse employment decision. The Court further held that the burden of persuasion does not shift to the employer to show it would have taken the action regardless of age, even when an employee has produced some evidence that age was a motivating factor in the decision. Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 2343 (June 18, 2009).
Earlier this month, three Democratic Congressional Committee Chairmen announced they would seek to overturn the case. It will be interesting to see whether Congress passes the bill.
Employer Pays for Retaliating Against an Employee Who Testified
The Illinois Appellate Court recently affirmed a stunning verdict against defendants Jovon Broadcasting (a Chicago-area television station) and Joseph Stroud (the owner and operational manager of Jovon).
The defendants were found liable for retaliating against former Jovon employee, Jerri Blount. At trial, the jury awarded her a total of $3,082,350 in damages. The award was comprised of $257,350 for back pay, $25,000 for physical and/or emotional pain and suffering, and $2,800,000 in punitive damages. The trial court also awarded Blount $1,182,832.10 in attorneys’ fees and costs.
Blount had witnessed the racial discrimination and sexual harassment of a fellow employee and had agreed to testify in her colleague’s case. Blount claimed that she was discharged in retaliation for agreeing to testify on her co-worker’s behalf.
The opinion recounts in detail many of the facts giving rise to Blount’s claims. At times, the facts are reminiscent of a soap opera. Fair warning: The opinion includes quotations of language and racial epithets that are not for the faint of heart. Blount v. Stroud, 2009 WL 3297585 (1st Dist., Oct. 6, 2009).
Jon Vegosen is a founding member of Funkhouser Vegosen Liebman & Dunn Ltd. and has more than 33 years experience practicing law. He is nationally recognized for his work in labor and employment relations and is sought after as an author and spokesperson on labor and employment issues.
Tags: ADA Amendments Act of 2008, ADAAA, age discrimination, Americans with Disabilities Act, EEOC, employment law, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Funkhouser Vegosen Liebman & Dunn, FVLD, Jon Vegosen, legal update, retaliation, workplace retaliation
Leave a Reply