SimplyHR | Employment & Labor Blog 

On April 9, 2020, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued its updated Technical Assistance Questions and Answers titled “What You Should Know About COVID-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Laws” addressing several questions that have arisen since the beginning of this national emergency and reminding us that even during a pandemic, employers need to be cognizant of their obligations under the ADA and other EEO laws. A summary of the questions and answers is provided below.

A more comprehensive guide from the EEOC can be found in “Pandemic Preparedness in the Workplace and the Americans With Disabilities Act,” which was drafted during the prior H1N1 outbreak and last revised on March 21, 2020, to address COVID-19.

Leave management is a common topic of conversation for HR professionals and employment specialists. Knowing the leave laws and the types of leave are just the tip of the iceberg in leave management. It takes a defined process to generally look at each leave request while taking each request on a case-by-case basis. Even with having a dedicated process for leaves, employers still need to remain attentive to ensure the process curtails risk and curbs potential leave abuse. Below are a few tips to help in the process. The two main federal leave laws, the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), are the focus of these tips. However, employers should keep in mind the other federal and state laws that may be implicated in the leave management process.

As we reported last fall, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals determined that a multi-month continuous leave of absence is beyond the scope of a reasonable accommodation under the ADA. The case was Severson v. Heartland Woodcraft, Inc., 872 F.3d 476 (7th Cir. 2017). After exhausting 12 continuous weeks of FMLA leave for a serious back condition, Severson informed his employer that he would need to remain off work for another two to three months. The Seventh Circuit reasoned that the ADA is an antidiscrimination statute, not a medical leave entitlement, and an employee who needs long-term medical leave cannot work and is therefore not a qualified individual under the ADA.

A recent Seventh Circuit case held that additional leave beyond what is otherwise required by leave entitlement laws is not a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act. This holding provides important guidance for employers. Continue reading for the details of this case and our recommended best practices in light of its holding.

The Department of Justice recently released its final rule extending coverage of the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) to Titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. This final rule, which takes effect Oct. 11, 2016, updates those titles to include the ADAAA.

Following new rules issued on employer wellness programs, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on June 16 released an example of how employers should communicate with their employees about the medical information those programs obtain.

In May, the EEOC issued final rules clarifying that Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) allow employers to use incentives to encourage participation in wellness programs that include disability-related inquiries and/or medical examinations as long as the programs are voluntary and the incentives do not exceed certain limits. Now, the EEOC has provided an example of how employers that offer these wellness programs may notify their employees about the specifics.

On May 16, 2016 the EEOC issued final rules amending the regulations and interpretive guidance implementing Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) with respect to employer wellness programs. These changes clarify that employers may use incentives to encourage participation in wellness programs that include disability-related inquiries and/or medical examinations as long as the programs are voluntary and the incentives do not exceed certain limits. Additionally, the rules confirm that employers may provide incentives when employees’ spouses—but not children—provide certain health information.

A railway company and the business groups that supported its position scored a victory April 5 with the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision that obesity is not a covered condition under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The ruling is the latest to support the position that general obesity, without an underlying medical cause, does not warrant protection under the ADA.

By a 6-3 majority, the Supreme Court created a potentially new standard by which employers’ accommodations given or denied to pregnant women will be judged under the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act (“PDA”).

In Young v. UPS, the plaintiff, Peggy Young, was deemed unable to work her part-time driver position once her physician placed her on a 20-pound lifting restriction. Young was placed on an unpaid leave, and returned to work after the birth of her child; however, Young subsequently filed a lawsuit against UPS alleging the company violated the PDA in refusing to accommodate her pregnancy-related lifting restriction and not assigning her to a light duty position. 

What is the Illinois Pregnancy Fairness Law?

Effective January 1, 2015, the Illinois Pregnancy Fairness Law provides workplace protections to all expectant mothers, regardless of an employer’s size. The Illinois Pregnancy Fairness Law amends the Illinois Human Rights Act, adding “pregnancy” as a protected class under state law. “Pregnancy” is defined broadly to mean “pregnancy, childbirth, or other medical or common conditions related to pregnancy or childbirth.” Accordingly, effective 1/1/15, the IHRA prohibits discrimination on the basis of “pregnancy” against applicants and employees and also requires employers to provide accommodations to expectant mothers to enable them to perform the job the job held or sought unless the employer can establishing that doing so would cause an undue hardship on the ordinary operation of the business. The Illinois law also prohibits retaliation against individuals who exercise their right to an accommodation under the law.