May 24, 2012

RCC Consultants, Inc. Sued for Disability Discrimination

Company Failed to Hire an Applicant Because of his Disability, EEOC Charges

RICHMOND, VA – RCC Consultants, Inc. (RCC Consultants) violated federal  disability discrimination law when it refused to hire an individual at its  mid-Atlantic regional office located in Glen Allen, Virginia because of his  disability, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in  a lawsuit it filed today. RCC Consultants,  a New Jersey-based company, is an international telecommunications engineering,  consulting and integration firm that has regional offices throughout the United States.

According to the EEOC’s complaint, RCC Consultants failed to hire  Stanton Woodcock for a managing consultant position because of his disability,  ocular albinism. Ocular albinism is an  inherited condition in which the eyes lack melanin pigment. Because of the lack of melanin pigment in his  eyes, Woodcock has a variety of vision problems which substantially limit his ability  to see. On or about October 17, 2007,  Woodcock interviewed for a managing consultant position at RCC Consultant’s  Glen Allen, Virginia  facility. Woodcock was offered the  position. According to the EEOC’s  complaint, around late-October 2007, when RCC Consultants learned that Woodcock  did not have a driver’s license and does not drive because of his disability,  RCC Consultants rescinded the offer of employment. Although Woodcock was fully qualified to  perform the duties of the managing consultant position, RCC Consultants  unlawfully failed to hire him for the position because of his disability, the  complaint alleges.

Such alleged conduct violates Title I of the Americans with  Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits private employers from discriminating  against qualified individuals with disabilities in hiring, firing, advancement,  compensation, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court  for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. RCC Consultants, Inc., Civil  Action No. 3:11-cv-00864), after first attempting to reach a voluntary  settlement out of court. The suit seeks  back pay, compensatory damages and punitive damages for Woodcock, as well as  injunctive and other non-monetary relief.

“It’s  unfortunate that twenty years after the enactment of the Americans with  Disabilities Act, some employers still react to applicants and employees based  on myths, fears or stereotypes about a certain impairment that the individual  may have and how that impairment might affect the individual’s ability to  perform a job,” said  Lynette A. Barnes, Regional Attorney for the EEOC’s Charlotte District  office. “This suit should remind  employers that the EEOC will not waiver in enforcing the ADA.”

The  EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting discrimination in employment. Further information about  the Commission is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

© 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.