EEOC, Manufacturer Settle ADA Lawsuit Over Job Offer Withdrawal to Applicant on Legal Meds

You can’t willy-nilly refuse to hire a job applicant because they are taking legally prescribed medications. The civil rights laws require more inquiry and effort than that.

The Modern Group, Ltd. (TMG), headquartered in Beaumont, Texas, and one of its subsidiaries, Dragon Rig Sales and Service, LLC, a manufacturing and service company which builds oilfield service equipment for energy and industrial companies, will pay $35,000 and furnish other relief to settle a U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) disability discrimination lawsuit, the federal agency announced May 14.

According to the lawsuit, Dragon Rig and TMG denied employment to an applicant with anxiety and Opioid Use Disorder (OUD) because of the prescription medications he used to treat those disabilities. The defendants made a job offer to the applicant after he applied at Dragon Rig in February 2019. The applicant completed and passed Defendants’ required drug screen because he had prescriptions for the medications.

Yet, the EEOC said, Dragon Rig and TMG jointly withdrew the offer of employment without contacting or engaging with the applicant to determine if he could perform the essential job functions with or without a reasonable accommodation. The companies based their decision on conclusory statements about the medications made by a medical review officer.

Such alleged conduct violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended (ADA), which prohibits discrimination in hiring, firing, and other employment actions based on mental and physical disabilities. The ADA may provide protection, as it did in this case, to employees or applicants who are using opioids, are addicted to opioids, or were addicted to opioids in the past, if they are not currently using drugs illegally.

The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. Dragon Rig Sales and Service, LLC and The Modern Group, Ltd., Case No. 1:21-CV-451) in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its administrative conciliation process. The consent decree settling the suit provides for settlement funds of $35,000 to be paid to the applicant, as well as management training, policy revisions, and other targeted relief to be implemented by the defendants.

Prior to entering the consent decree on March 25, the court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and entered partial judgment for the EEOC, finding that Dragon Rig and TMG operated as an integrated enterprise throughout the relevant time period. The court also granted summary judgment to the EEOC on several of the companies’ affirmative defenses, and limited testimony the defendants sought to introduce through their expert witness.

“If your opioid use is legal and not prohibited by another federal law, an employer cannot automatically disqualify you on that basis, or because of the medications used to treat OUD, without considering whether there is a way for you to do your job safely and effectively,” said Rudy Sustaita, the EEOC’s regional attorney in Houston.

Connie Gatlin, the lead trial attorney for the case said, “If you are taking an opioid medication as directed in a medically assisted therapy (MAT) program, then you have a valid prescription. You cannot be denied employment or fired from a job because you are in a MAT program unless you cannot do the job safely and effectively or you are disqualified under another federal law.”

The EEOC maintains guidance documents and fact sheets pertaining to the ADA, which can be found at https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc-disability-related-resources/eeoc-disability-related-publications.

For more information about reasonable accommodation and other protections for employees and applicants with OUD, you may consult https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/use-codeine-oxycodone-and-other-opioids-information-employees.

Information for health care providers to assist their patients with opioid use disorder to become and remain employed and in treatment may be found at https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/how-health-care-providers-can-help-current-and-former-patients-who-have-used-opioids.

The EEOC’s Houston District Office has jurisdiction over southeast Texas, as well as all of Louisiana.

$75K Settlement Ends EEOC Lawsuit Alleging Employer Blabbed About Employee’s Condition

With these alleged facts, it’s no wonder the employer settled.

The employer compounded its initial transgression by harassing the victim and then firing her when she complained, the government charged.

Headquartered in Tennessee, Tractor Supply Company, the nation’s largest rural lifestyle retailer with over 2,400 stores and more than 50,000 employees, has agreed to pay $75,000 and provide other relief to settle a disability discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced May 14.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, Tractor Supply Company violated federal law when it disclosed an employee’s confidential medical information, subjected her to a hostile work environment, and terminated her because of her disability and as retaliation for complaining. The employee was born with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, which is a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Company managers learned of the employee’s disability and publicized the information to her co-workers and customers, who then harassed the employee because of her condition. When the employee complained about this harassment and the disclosure of her confidential medication information, the company disciplined her without justification and ultimately fired her.

Such alleged conduct violates the ADA, which prohibits: the disclosure of an employee’s confidential medical information; discrimination against individuals with a disability; subjecting an individual to a hostile work environment because of their disability; and retaliation against an employee who opposes unlawful conduct. The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. Tractor Supply Company, Case No. 2:22-cv-00131-KS-MTP) in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi after its Jackson Area Office completed an investigation and first attempted to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its voluntary conciliation process. The Court approved a consent decree resolving the dispute on May 14, 2024.The two-year consent decree settling the suit requires Tractor Supply Company to pay $75,000 to the employee, enhance its policies concerning disability discrimination and retaliation, and train annually all its employees nationwide about disability discrimination and retaliation.

“Employees should be able to trust that their employer will protect the privacy of their confidential medical information,” said EEOC Birmingham District Director Bradley Anderson. “They should also be able to work without being harassed because of their disability. That’s what the ADA requires, and the EEOC is committed to enforcing these important protections under the law.”

Marsha Rucker, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Birmingham District, said, “Tractor Supply Company created and maintained a hostile work environment for this employee by publicizing her private medical information and then failing to address the harassment this generated. Rather than protect this employee from harassment, the company fired her. This is unlawful under the ADA, and the EEOC will hold an employer accountable when it violates this crucial federal law.”

For more information on disability discrimination, please visit https://www.eeoc.gov/disability-discrimination. For more information on retaliation, please visit https://www.eeoc.gov/retaliation.

The EEOC’s Birmingham District consists of Alabama, Mississippi (except 17 northern counties) and the Florida Panhandle.

Violent Patient Attacks on Workers Draws OSHA Rebuke and $101K Fine Against Facility Operator

The indifference of this employer toward workers’ safety has come back to bite it.

For the third time in five years, a federal investigation has found the operator of multiple psychiatric and rehabilitation facilities, has had workers seriously injured or killed in violent patient attacks, including an employee who suffered serious injuries caused by a patient at a Melbourne location.

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration began an investigation into the Nov. 7, 2023, incident after Circles of Care Inc. reported the worker’s hospitalization two days after a patient used a metal hole punch to strike a mental health technician at a nurse’s workstation in the head, face, hands and arms. A second employee suffered a hand laceration as they assisted in restraining the patient.

OSHA cited the company with a repeat violation for not providing a workplace free of recognized safety and health hazards — such as workplace violence — at its Sheridan West Unit at 400 E. Sheridan Road. The agency found Circles of Care failed to provide sufficient controls to prevent the escalation of acts of aggression toward professional staff. OSHA also issued a citation for an other-than-serious violation for the company’s failure to report an employee’s work-related hospitalization within 24 hours, as required by law.

Circles of Care Inc. faces $101,397 in proposed OSHA penalties for these violations.

The incident follows OSHA investigations into two other serious incidents in 2020 at the company’s facility on Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard in Melbourne: the fatal shooting of a counselor by a former Circles of Care patient in December and, on another occasion, an alleged assault.

“Circles of Care’s reluctance to protect its employees from the recognized danger of patient assault is shocking. These attacks often occur suddenly and swiftly, causing serious and, as we’ve seen, fatal harm to workers and leaving their co-workers traumatized,” said OSHA Area Office Director Erin Sanchez in Orlando, Florida. “Workplace violence remains a real threat that healthcare employers and employees cannot underestimate. Industry employers like Circles of Care must prepare and train employees properly and practice emergency response actions to combat these incidents and ensure their employees are able to end their shifts safely.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate the rate of nonfatal assaults on hospital workers at 8.3 per 10,000 workers, significantly higher than the rate of 2.0 per 10,000 workers in all private sector industries.

Based in Melbourne, Circles of Care Inc. operates 10 facilities, including four outpatient locations, providing behavioral health, substance abuse disorder and other healthcare services. The company has a workforce of about 480 employees statewide.

The company has 15 business days from receipt of their citations and penalties to comply, request an informal conference with OSHA, or contest the findings before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.

View information on Worker Safety in Hospitals and Guidelines for Preventing Workplace Violence for Healthcare and Social Service Workers.

Secure Again: EEOC Recovers Damages for Employee Fired Because of Age, Heart Attack

The monetary award here is less important than the principle. And that principle is stated simply: you can’t fire an employee because of their age or because of a health condition. Or in this case allegedly because of both.

Maximum Security NYC, Inc., a security company headquartered in Queens, New York, will pay a former employee $22,500 and implement an anti-discrimination policy and training program to resolve an age- and disability-discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced Monday.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, Maximum Security had given a 57-year-old employee numerous assignments at client hotels where he was responsible for assisting with evacuations and acting as a liaison to the local fire department during an emergency. However, after the employee suffered a heart attack in December 2020 and returned to work, his supervisor repeatedly told him that he should retire already given his age and heart attack, and then explicitly fired him for the same reasons.

The alleged conduct violated both the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), which prohibit discrimination against employees with disabilities and against employees because of their age, respectively. The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. Maximum Security NYC, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-05641) in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York after the parties were unable to reach a pre-litigation settlement through the EEOC’s conciliation process.

The decree settling the suit provides for $22,500 in emotional distress damages to be provided to the employee terminated due to his age and disability. The decree also provides for significant non-monetary relief designed to prevent future discrimination, including issuance of a robust new anti-discrimination policy covering age, disability, and other forms of discrimination; extensive and continuing anti-discrimination training for managers and employees; and strong injunctions against discrimination based on age or disability and improperly storing employees’ medical records. The EEOC will monitor Maximum Security’s compliance with these obligations for more than two years.

“Age and disability discrimination are unjust and unlawful,” said Daniel Seltzer, a trial attorney in the EEOC’s New York District Office. “An employer cannot rely on stereotypes or fears to deny employees the opportunity to work.”

Yaw Gyebi, Jr., director of the EEOC’s New York District Office, said, “The EEOC remains steadfastly committed to enforcing the ADA in all aspects of employment; that includes employees who may have had cardiac problems but are still able to perform the essential functions of their job.”

For more information on age discrimination, please visit https://www.eeoc.gov/age-discrimination. For more information on disability discrimination, please visit https://www.eeoc.gov/disability-discrimination.

The EEOC’s New York District Office is responsible for addressing discrimination charges and conducting agency litigation in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, northern New Jersey, Rhode Island and Vermont.

OSHA Opens New Regional Office in Southeast

This isn’t the most earthshatteritng news for a Monday morning, but on the other hand depending on where you are located in the U.S. this will be of interest. It’s important to know which regional offices you’ll be hearing from when safety inspectors drop by to do their inspections.

The Department of Labor today announced strategic changes to the structure of its Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s regional operations designed to direct its resources effectively and make the agency more resilient.

The changes include the creation of a new OSHA regional office in Birmingham, Alabama, overseeing agency operations in the state, and those in Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi and Tennessee as well as the Florida Panhandle. The Birmingham Region will address the area’s growing worker population and the hazardous work done by people employed in food processing, construction, heavy manufacturing and chemical processing.

OSHA is also planning to merge Regions 9 and 10 into a new San Francisco Region to improve operations and reduce operating costs.

As part of the changes, the agency will also rename its regions to associate them by geography, rather than its current practice of assigning numbers to regions. As such, the area OSHA calls Region 4 will be renamed the Atlanta Region with jurisdiction over Florida, excluding the Panhandle; Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina. The current Region 6 will be renamed the Dallas Region and have jurisdiction over workplace safety issues in New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas.

The composition of OSHA’s other regions will remain the same. When completed, the agency’s regions will be renamed as follows:

View a map of OSHA’s new regional structure and boundaries.

“The changes reflect the nation’s demographic and industrial changes since the passage of the OSH Act and will allow our professionals to better respond to the needs of all workers, including those historically underserved,” explained Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health Doug Parker. “With a stronger enforcement presence in the South and more consolidated state oversight and whistleblower presence in the West — an area dominated by states that operate their OSHA programs — we can direct our resources where they’re needed most.”

OSHA plans to fully transition to its new regional structure later in fiscal year 2024. Once implemented, the agency’s regional maps and contact information online will be updated publicly.

Wire Down: Montana Utility Pays $50K Punitive Damages to Settle EEOC Harassment Lawsuit

Bad enough in this case that it was the company’s GM that engaged in this misconduct. Worse still, that the employer backed him up in making him the only person to whom the victim could report the matter.

NorVal Electric Cooperative, Inc., a utility serving Northeast Montana, agreed to pay $50,000 to a former employee and provide other injunctive relief to resolve a sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced May 9.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, NorVal’s office manager faced unwelcome sexual comments and physical touching from her direct supervisor, the utility’s then-general manager. The conduct escalated during a business trip when he suggested that they meet in his hotel room, which she adamantly refused. When she sought to report his conduct, he made escalating threats against her job, and NorVal blocked her from complaining to anyone other than her harasser, the EEOC said.

Such conduct violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sexual harassment in the workplace as well as retaliating against an employee for opposing harassment. The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. NorVal Electric Cooperative, Inc., Case No. 4:19-cv-00071-BMM) in U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, Great Falls Division, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its administrative conciliation process.

Under the three-year consent decree settling the suit, NorVal will pay $50,000 in punitive damages – the maximum available by statute for an employer of NorVal’s size – to the former employee. The decree also requires that the company retain an independent consultant to assist NorVal in developing anti-discrimination policies and procedures, receive and independently and confidentially investigate any complaints of sexual harassment and/or retaliation, and recommend appropriate corrective action to remedy any complaints of discrimination or retaliation.

In addition, NorVal must designate multiple points of contact for complaints and implement companywide anti-discrimination training. It is further barred from employing the harasser in any capacity.

“Forcing a person to report harassment to her harasser runs contrary to business sense and best practice,” said Elizabeth M. Cannon, director of the EEOC’s Seattle Field Office. “It is vital for employers to have robust policies and procedures that provide employees safe options to report harassment without fear of retaliation. This settlement sends a clear message that employers must protect their employees from harassment.”

EEOC Senior Trial Attorney Amos Blackman said, “This harasser tried to put himself above the law, and it took incredible courage for this employee to come forward. I hope this settlement brings her some measure of relief.”

For more information on sexual harassment, please visit https://www.eeoc.gov/sexual-harassment .

The EEOC’s Seattle Field Office has jurisdiction over Washington, Alaska, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana.

Heat Exposure Rulemaking Gets Bump Forward

Rulemaking is the sausage making of enforcing the laws on the books. Not always pretty to watch, often plodding, but vitally important for an effective final product. (Actually, for all I know, sausage making is a quick one-to-three process, but you get the analogy I hope)

The Department of Labor has taken an important step in addressing the dangers of workplace heat and moved closer to publishing a proposed rule to reducing the significant health risks of heat exposure for U.S. workers in outdoor and indoor settings.

On April 24, 2024, the department’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration presented the draft rule’s initial regulatory framework at a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health. The committee, which advises the agency on safety and health standards and policy matters, unanimously recommended OSHA move forward expeditiously on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. As part of the rulemaking process, the agency will seek and consider input from a wide range of stakeholders and the public at-large as it works to propose and finalize its rule.

In the interim, OSHA continues to direct significant existing outreach and enforcement resources to educate employers and workers and hold businesses accountable for violations of the Occupational Safety and Health Act’s general duty clause, 29 U.S.C. § 654(a)(1) and other applicable regulations. Record-breaking temperatures across the nation have increased the risks people face on-the-job, especially in summer months. Every year, dozens of workers die and thousands more suffer illnesses related to hazardous heat exposure that, sadly, are most often preventable.

“Workers at risk of heat illness need a new rule to protect workers from heat hazards. OSHA is working aggressively to develop a new regulation that keeps workers safe from the dangers of heat,” explained Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health Doug Parker. “As we move through the required regulatory process for creating these protections, OSHA will use all of its existing tools to hold employers responsible when they fail to protect workers from known hazards such as heat, including our authority to stop employers from exposing workers to conditions which pose an imminent danger.”

The agency continues to conduct heat-related inspections under its National Emphasis Program – Outdoor and Indoor Heat-Related Hazards, launched in 2022. The program inspects workplaces with the highest exposures to heat-related hazards proactively to prevent workers from suffering injury, illness or death needlessly. Since the launch, OSHA has conducted nearly 5,000 federal heat-related inspections.

In addition, the agency is prioritizing programmed inspections in agricultural industries that employ temporary, nonimmigrant H-2A workers for seasonal labor. These workers face unique vulnerabilities, including potential language barriers, less control over their living and working conditions, and possible lack of acclimatization, and are at high risk of hazardous heat exposure.

By law, employers must protect workers from the dangers of heat exposure and should have a proper safety and health plan in place. At a minimum, employers should provide adequate cool water, rest breaks and shade or a cool rest area. Employees who are new or returning to a high heat workplace should be allowed time to gradually get used to working in hot temperatures. Workers and managers should also be trained so they can identify and help prevent heat illness themselves.

“No worker should have to get sick or die because their employer refused to provide water, or breaks to recover from high heat, or failed to act after a worker showed signs of heat illness,” Parker added.

As always, OSHA will share information and coordinate enforcement and compliance assistance efforts with states operating their own occupational safety and health programs. At the same time, the agency’s compliance assistance specialists regularly meet with employer associations, workers and their advocacy groups and labor unions to supply information and education on heat hazards.

Learn more about OSHA. Learn more about working in outdoor and indoor heat environments.

Chipotle Serves up $50K Settlement in EEOC Lawsuit Brought on Behalf of Harassed Employee

Sadly, this happens all too often in the restaurant industry. One hopes that these businesses get the message with each lawsuit filed that this type of behavior must be rooted out before it becomes ingrained.

Chipotle Services, LLC will pay $50,000 to a former crew member at its Prattville, Alabama restaurant location and will provide other relief to resolve a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced May 1.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, beginning in October 2019, a male restaurant manager at the Prattville Chipotle Mexican Grill sexually harassed the employee daily through unwanted sexual advances, sexual comments and sexually offensive conduct, including sexual contact. Chipotle failed to investigate complaints against the manager or take steps that would have stopped the sexual harassment, the EEOC said.

Such alleged conduct violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits a sexually hostile environment in the workplace. The EEOC filed its lawsuit (EEOC v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., and Chipotle Services, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00326-MHT-SMD) in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

Under the two-year consent decree settling the case, Chipotle will also review, revise as necessary, and implement its anti-discrimination policies that prohibit sexual harassment. Employees at Chipotle’s Alabama restaurants in Prattville and Montgomery will receive in-person training on sexual harassment, and the managers and human resources personnel with authority over those restaurants will receive additional sexual harassment training.

“In short, sexual harassment is illegal,” said EEOC Birmingham district director Bradley Anderson. “As we see in this instance, failure to enforce anti-harassment policies can embolden sexual harassers, especially ones who are in a position of authority, and multiply the number of victims. The consent decree in this case provides the opportunity for Chipotle to develop a culture in its restaurants where employees can work free of sexual harassment.”

Marsha Rucker, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Birmingham District, added, “Even when a victimized employee is not fired or disciplined, employers can be complicit with sexually harassing managers when the proper procedures for prevention and correction are not in place or are easily thwarted by the chain of command. The EEOC will hold employers accountable under federal law when they fail to protect their workers from a sexually hostile work environment.”

For more information on sexual harassment, please visit https://www.eeoc.gov/sexual-harassment.

The EEOC’s Birmingham District Office has jurisdiction over Alabama, Mississippi (except 17 northern counties) and the Florida Panhandle.

Settlement Wraps up EEOC Retaliation Lawsuit

Todays topic: Retaliation.

And why it’s counterproductive to engage in it.

When an employee complains about discrimination, take it seriously, investigate, and move on.

Barrett Distribution Centers, LLC will pay $60,000 and furnish other relief to settle a U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) lawsuit for unlawful retaliation against an employee, the federal agency announced April 30.

The EEOC suit alleged Barrett, along with Supreme Staffing, retaliated against a former employee by removing him and ultimately firing him because he spoke out about national origin discrimination at Barrett’s Memphis facilities.

Such alleged conduct violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits retaliation against those who complain about discrimination. The EEOC sued in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, Western Division, EEOC v. Supreme Staffing, LLC and Barrett Distrib. Centers, LLC, 2:23-cv-02507-SHL-tmp, after first seeking to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

The three-year consent decree settling the suit, entered by U.S. District Judge Sheryl Lipman, requires several actions from Barrett, including creation of an anti-retaliation policy and distribution to all staffing agencies it uses for temporary workers. Barrett must also conduct annual training designed to prevent retaliation and provide semi-annual records to the Commission on any employee who complains about discrimination in placement, referral or selection.

“As retaliation claims continue to rise, we applaud those are who are willing to bravely step up and report discriminatory treatment,” said Faye Williams, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Memphis District Office. “We also commend Barrett for its commitment to reaching an early resolution that will compensate the affected former employee as well as ensuring that all staffing agencies Barrett works with are aware of Barrett’s pledge to combat unlawful discrimination and retaliation in its workspace.”

Edmond Sims, Jr., acting district director of the Memphis District Office, said, “Memphis is one of the top distribution centers for America. It is important that employees know their federally protected rights and that they can freely report suspected violations free from fear of retaliation.”

For more information on retaliation, please visit https://www.eeoc.gov/retaliation. For more information on national origin discrimination, please visit https://www.eeoc.gov/national-origin-discrimination.

The EEOC’s Memphis District Office has jurisdiction over Arkansas, Tennessee, and 17 counties in Northern Mississippi.

Home-Based Care Provider Fined $163K Following Death of LPN at Patient’s Hand

For licensed practical nurses the workplace often is a patient’s home. This case is a warning to the health care agencies that employ them that they must take steps to make sure working in a patient’s home is safe. This includes protecting them from patients’ aggressive behavior.

A federal workplace safety investigation following the death of a licensed practical nurse during an Oct. 28, 2023, home visit in Willimantic, Connecticut, found one of the nation’s largest home-based care providers did not provide adequate safeguards to protect the nurse, Joyce Grayson, and other employees from the dangers of workplace violence.

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration determined that on or about Oct. 28, 2023, and at times prior, Elara Caring exposed home healthcare employees to workplace violence from patients who exhibited aggressive behavior and were known to pose a risk to others.

Following its investigation, OSHA cited Jordan Health Care Inc. and New England Home Care Inc., both doing business as Elara Caring, for one willful violation under the agency’s general duty clause. OSHA cited the employer for not developing and implementing adequate measures to protect employees from the ongoing serious hazard of workplace violence. The agency also cited the employer for one other-than-serious violation for not providing work-related injury and illness records to OSHA within four business hours, as required.

Elara Caring faces $163,627 in proposed penalties. View the citations.

“Elara Caring failed its legal duty to protect employees from workplace injury by not having effective measures in place to protect employees against a known hazard and it cost a worker her life,” said OSHA Area Director Charles D. McGrevy in Hartford, Connecticut. “For its employees’ well-being, Elara must develop, implement and maintain required safeguards such as a comprehensive workplace violence prevention program. Workplace safety is not a privilege; it is every worker’s right.”

To address workplace violence, employers should have in place a comprehensive workplace violence prevention program. Elements of a plan should include management commitment and employee involvement; implementation of a written program including the establishment, membership and role of a Workplace Violence Safety Committee; analysis of home environments upon new patient admission; hazard prevention and control; training and education, including resources for impacted employees; recordkeeping; and solicitation of employee feedback during the review process.

OSHA also found that Elara Caring could have reduced the hazard of workplace violence by, among other ways, performing root cause analyses on incidents of violence and near misses, providing clinicians with comprehensive background information on patients prior to home visits, providing emergency panic alert buttons to clinicians and developing procedures for the use of safety escorts for visits to patients with high-risk behaviors.

Elara Caring provides home-based care with over 200 branches in 17 states, including five branches in Connecticut. Its services include skilled home health, hospice care, personal care service, palliative care and behavioral health.

The company has 15 business days from receipt of its citations and penalties to comply, request an informal conference with OSHA’s area director, or contest the findings before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports 849 U.S. workers died in workplace violence incidents in 2022. Learn more about OSHA and protecting employees against workplace violence, including Guidelines for Preventing Workplace Violence for Healthcare and Social Service Workers, Workplace Violence in Healthcare: Understanding the Challenge and Preventing Workplace Violence: A Road Map for Healthcare Facilities.