Advertisement

June 19, 2013

EEOC Sues the Scooter Store for Disability Discrimination

Farmingdale Store Refused Leave of Absence for Employee With Knee Injury, Then Fired Him, Federal Agency Charges

NEW YORK -- The Scooter Store, a nationwide, Texas-based retailer, violated federal law when it refused to accommodate an employee's request for a temporary leave of absence due to a knee injury and then fired him from its store in Farmingdale, N.Y., the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it filed this week.

The EEOC’s lawsuit, Civil Action No. 1:11-04226-AAR-VVP, filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, alleges that The Scooter Store failed to accommodate an employee's request for a reasonable accommodation for his disability, psoriatic arthritis, after he sustained a knee injury that required a temporary absence from work. The EEOC’s suit states that the employee timely informed the company he was incapacitated until further notice and that he required a leave of absence to seek treatment for his disability. However, The Scooter Store refused his request and instead fired him, purportedly for job abandonment, although he had presented medical documentation.

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 the employee, the adoption of strong policies and procedures to remedy and prevent disability discrimination, training on discrimination for its managers and employees, and other relief.

“Granting a temporary leave of absence to this employee would have posed no undue hardship on this company and would have allowed the employee to recuperate and return to work,” said Adela Santos, trial attorney in the EEOC’s New York District Office.

Elizabeth Grossman, regional attorney for the EEOC’s New York District, added, “Employers are obligated to engage in an interactive process with employees and provide reasonable accommodations for their disabilities. Refusing to even consider an employee's request for a reasonable accommodation is tantamount to a clear violation of the ADA.”

© 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.