$50K Settlement in Suit Over Medical Leave

This employer decided to throw in the towel rather than fight the federal government in court over its refusal to extend short–term an employee’s unpaid medical leave.

Kessinger Hunter Management, Inc. (KHMI), a national commercial property management company with its primary corporate offices in Kansas City, Mo., will pay $50,000 to a former employee, change its policies, and provide training to employees to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced today.

The EEOC charged that KHMI violated federal law when it refused to extend employee Richard Shipe’s unpaid 30-day leave of absence by one week to allow him to recover from surgery. Shipe requested the short extension of leave as a reasonable accommodation to comply with his doctor’s orders, but KHMI denied his request because it would violate its 30-day maximum medical leave policy. When Shipe was unable to return to work after 30 days, the company fired him, the EEOC said.

Such alleged conduct violates Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The EEOC filed its lawsuit in September 2017 in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri (EEOC v. Kessinger Hunter Management Co., Inc., Case No. 4:17-cv-809-HFS) seeking relief for Shipe and injunctive remedies to prevent future violations of the ADA, which protects employees from discrimination based on disability and requires employers to make reasonable accommodations to known disabilities.

In addition to requiring the payment to Shipe, the consent decree settling the suit, entered today by Senior Judge Howard F. Sachs, enjoins KHMI from terminating employees because of disability and from failing to make a reasonable accommodation to known physical or mental limitations of applicants or employees in the future. The decree also requires KHMI to provide additional training to its director of human resources and change its policies to comply with the ADA, ensuring that no accommodation request from an employee is denied without KHMI engaging in an interactive process to determine a reasonable accommodation. It also enables the EEOC to monitor KHMI’s compliance with the decree and requires the company to submit periodic reports to the agency.

“Maximum leave policies that do not allow flexibility for reasonable accommodation of employees with disabilities rob workers of the opportunity to earn a living and support themselves and their families,” Andrea G. Baran, regional attorney for EEOC’s St. Louis District, said. “We are happy that KHMI will work to provide reasonable accommodation to employees with disabilities going forward, benefiting both workers and the company.”

James R. Neely, Jr., director of the EEOC’s St. Louis District Office, added, “With this resolution, we trust that KHMI’s employees will not have difficulty being accommodated in the future, especially when requesting a short extension to medical leave.”

The St. Louis District Office oversees Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and a portion of southern Illinois. The EEOC advances opportunity in the workplace by enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination.

EEOC Sues Dialysis Clinic Over Leave Policy

Once again the EEOC is taking on an employer over its application of a medical leave policy. This time it is nationwide healthcare provider Dialysis Clinic Inc. According to the EEOC’s lawsuit filed today in California, the clinic violated the Americans With Disabilities Act by firing and refusing to rehire a long-term nurse who needed more medical leave to complete her cancer treatment.

The EEOC alleges that DCI notified the nurse by mail that she was being terminated for exceeding the time limit dictated by its medical leave policy. DCI took this action even though the nurse was on approved medical leave and was cleared by her doctor to return to work without restrictions in less than two months.

In this situation, the employer has a duty to offer a reasonable accommodation unless undue hardship would result.

The nurse was told that she would have to reapply for open positions,  but when she did apply over two months later, she was rejected, and not long after, DCI hired a newly licensed nurse, the EEOC is alleging.

“Given the ADA’s mandate, I would urge employers to be flexible concerning leave extensions if it causes no undue hardship,” said EEOC San Francisco Regional Attorney William R. Tamayo. “Ms. Lee had over 30 years’ experience in dialysis treatment and really wanted to work. Our investigation showed that she only needed two more months to return to work. Why sacrifice a valuable employee with a good record over an arbitrary time limit?”

Here’s the EEOC’s announcement of the lawsuit.