Advertisement

April 16, 2014

Gannett Companies Settle EEOC Disability Discrimination Lawsuit for Almost $50,000

Media Giant Fired Employee Who Returned From Leave for Bipolar Disorder, Federal Agency Charged

PHOENIX -- The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced today that it has settled a disability discrimination lawsuit against Gannett Company, Inc. and Gannett Media Technologies, Inc. (GMTI) charging the companies with firing an employee because she had bipolar disorder.

According to the EEOC's suit, EEOC v. Gannett Company, Inc. and Gannett Media Technologies, Inc., CV 11-00675-PHX-DKD, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona in Phoenix, Gannett hired Robin Parker-Garcia in its Tempe, Ariz., facility as an application support analyst.  After Parker-Garcia returned from a medical leave of absence because of her bipolar condition, the Gannett companies unlawfully discharged her, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).  The suit further charged that during her employment, Parker-Garcia exceeded expectations and was up for a promotion before she went on the medical leave.

In settling the lawsuit, Gannett agreed to pay Ms. Parker-Garcia $49,900 as compensatory damages and back pay.  The consent decree-in effect for two years after its entry--also provides that the companies will provide appropriate training about disability discrimination to all of their human resources, supervisory, and managerial employees in three states. A notice is also required to be posted.  Gannett is required to review and modify its policies to comply with the ADA.

"The ADA and its recent amendments have made clear that many mental disabilities are protected by federal law," said EEOC Regional Attorney Mary Jo O'Neill.  "Many disabled persons, including those with bipolar disorder, are qualified, ready and willing to work -- all they need is an equal opportunity."

Rayford O. Irvin, district director of the EEOC's Phoenix District Office, added, "It is difficult enough for a person to deal with a disability. That difficulty can only be exacerbated when an employer terminates a person because of that disability. The ADA was enacted in part to eliminate discrimination based on stereotypes and fear. We will continue to vigorously pursue our mission of fighting employment discrimination on all fronts, and will continue to fight for disabled individuals who are ready, willing, and able to work in this tough economy."

© Copyright 2013 - 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. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be  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.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.