May 23, 2012

EEOC Sues Kohl's Department Stores For Disability Discrimination

Employee Forced to Quit After Store Denies a Regular Schedule to Accommodate Her Diabetes

PORTLAND, Maine  – Kohl’s Department Stores, a nationwide, Wisconsin-based retailer, violated  federal law when it refused to accommodate a diabetic employee’s request for a  regular schedule and forced her to quit her job at a Westbrook, Maine, Kohl’s store, the  U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it  filed today.

The EEOC’s lawsuit, Civil Action  No.11-00320, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Maine, alleges  that Kohl’s failed to accommodate Pamela Manning, who began to suffer  significant complications to her diabetes after Kohl’s switched her from her  long-held set schedule to an irregular schedule. The EEOC’s suit states that her oral requests  for a return to a set schedule were repeatedly ignored. After Manning brought in a note from her  doctor that explained the need for her to work a predictable day shift to help  prevent serious complications from her diabetes, Kohl’s again refused to change  her schedule. When Manning told Kohl’s that the scheduled hours could kill her, its store manager laughed and told her  that she would not accommodate her, the EEOC said. Manning then had no choice but to resign her  employment to protect her health. Kohl’s  refused to accommodate Manning even though it had numerous employees on set schedules and had accommodated employees’ scheduling  requests for such reasons as day care, transportation and other personal  needs.

Disability discrimination,  including the failure to reasonably accommodate an employee’s disability,  violates the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to  reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The agency seeks monetary relief for Manning,  the adoption of strong policies and procedures to remedy and prevent  disability discrimination by Kohl’s, training on discrimination for its  managers and employees, and more.

“Employers  are obligated to reasonably accommodate employees with disabilities, and this  obligation becomes even more serious when a worker has a potentially  life-threatening illness,” said Markus L. Penzel, trial attorney in the EEOC’s  Boston Area Office, which has jurisdiction over Maine.

Elizabeth Grossman, regional  attorney for the EEOC’s New York District, added, “Keeping Ms. Manning on a  regular, set schedule would have posed no undue hardship on this company. When one considers the possible dire  consequences of ignoring her needs, refusing her request out of hand was  unconscionable.”

© Copyright 2012 - U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

About the Author

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is responsible for enforcing federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate against a job applicant or an employee because of the person's race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. It is also illegal to discriminate against a person because the person complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit.

Most employers with at least 15...

800-669-4000

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.