May 23, 2012

EEOC’s $20 Million Settlement with Verizon Puts Focus on “No Fault” Attendance and Leave Policies

In a press release last month, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced that Verizon Communications will pay $20 million and take other remedial measures to settle a class action disability discrimination lawsuit that the EEOC filed against the company. The consent decree between Verizon and the EEOC for settlement of the lawsuit, which is pending judicial approval, is the largest disability discrimination settlement in a single lawsuit in EEOC history.

The EEOC’s lawsuit claimed that Verizon unlawfully denied reasonable accommodations to hundreds of employees and disciplined or fired them pursuant to the company’s “no fault” attendance policy. Under Verizon’s “no fault” policy, if an employee accumulated a certain number of “chargeable absences,” the company placed the employee in a disciplinary status that could eventually result in more serious discipline or termination. The EEOC contended that Verizon failed to provide reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities by refusing to make exceptions to its “no fault” attendance policy for employees whose “chargeable absences” were caused by their disabilities and, in some cases, disciplining or terminating these employees.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, Verizon violated the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) because its “no fault” attendance policy was inflexible and made no provision for whether a reasonable accommodation of employees with disabilities, such as allowing an employee to take paid or unpaid leave, could be made without causing the company significant difficulty or expense. In addition to the $20 million in monetary relief for affected employees, the EEOC’s settlement with Verizon requires the company to revise its attendance policies to include reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities, such as excusing certain absences, and provide periodic training on ADA requirements to employees responsible for administering Verizon’s attendance policies.

In a recent alert, we reported on a public hearing held by the EEOC to address the use of unpaid leave as a reasonable accommodation under the ADA, and two recent federal court cases illustrating the challenges to inflexible leave policies. Rigid “no fault” attendance policies will be subject to similar challenges, as demonstrated by the Verizon case. In the EEOC’s press release for its settlement with Verizon, one of the agency’s regional directors was quoted as saying, “This settlement demonstrates the need for employers to have attendance policies which take into account the need for paid or unpaid leave as a reasonable accommodation for employees with disabilities.”

With the recent enactment of the Americans With Disabilities Amendments Act, it is easier for employees to qualify as disabled and even more important for employers to consider and explore reasonable accommodations. Employers should consult employment counsel to make sure a company’s attendance and leave policies take into account whether an individual may qualify as disabled and need a reasonable accommodation, such as an excused absence or unpaid leave.
 

© 2012 Poyner Spruill LLP. All rights reserved.

About the Author

Partner

Louis has over 20 years of experience in cases for companies and individuals involving non-compete covenants, trade secrets and other matters associated with departing employees. He has obtained restraining orders and injunctions in numerous cases to prevent departing employees from violating non-compete agreements, diverting customer relationships and misappropriating trade secrets. Louis advises clients on using non-compete covenants in employment contracts and other business agreements, as well as a wide variety of other strategies for protection of key employees, customer relationships...

919-783-2810

About the Author

Partner

David practices in the area of employment litigation.  He regularly advises and defends clients in race, age, disability and sex discrimination and harassment cases; reviews handbooks and termination issues; and provides compliance advice on matters of employment law.

Representative Experience

McNeil v. Scotland County - Obtained summary judgment for employer where plaintiff alleged race discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act as well as violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Successfully...

919-783-2854

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.