Advertisement

May 23, 2013

Maximus Will Pay $50,000 to Settle EEOC Disability Discrimination Lawsuit

Virginia  Company Refused to Promote Woman Because of Her Previous Stroke, Federal  Agency Charged

Maximus, Inc., a Reston, Va.-based business management and logistic  consulting services firm, has agreed to pay $50,000 and furnish other  significant relief to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the  U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced  today. 

According  to the EEOC’s suit filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of  Virginia, Alexandria Division (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v.  Maximus, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-1022), Maximus failed to promote  Thelma Austin in November 2009 because of concerns about the residual effects  of a stroke that she suffered in July 2009.   Austin had been employed by Maximus in its McLean, Va., facility since  January 2007.  She sought a promotion to  a senior client services position.

Title  I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) protects employees and  applicants from discrimination based on perceived or actual disabilities.  The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to  reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

Pursuant  to the 2 ½-year consent decree resolving the litigation, Maximus agreed to pay  $50,000 in monetary relief to Austin.  In  addition, the company must take other actions set forth in the decree,  including distributing its anti-discrimination policy; posting its anti-discrimination  policy in its McLean facility; providing annual ADA-specific training to its  managers, supervisors and employees in its McLean facility; and posting a  notice about the settlement.  Further,  Maximus is enjoined from engaging in any further discrimination against any  person on the basis of disability, and has agreed to be monitored by the EEOC  for the decree’s term.

“Employers  must remember that they cannot deny work opportunities to people who are ready  and able simply because of inaccurate perceptions about medical impairments and  disabilities,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Lynette A. Barnes of the agency’s  Charlotte District, which includes Virginia.  “This resolution should serve as a reminder that the EEOC will remain  vigilant in its enforcement 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.