Advertisement

May 23, 2013

RCC Consultants Will Pay $45,000 to Settle EEOC Disability Discrimination Lawsuit

Company Revoked Conditional Job Offer After  Discovering Candidate Had Vision Problems, Federal Agency Charged

RCC Consultants, Inc., a New Jersey-based telecommunications engineering and  consulting company that has offices throughout the United States, has agreed to  pay $45,000 and furnish other significant relief to settle a disability lawsuit  filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency  announced today.

According  to the EEOC’s suit, 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. 

The  EEOC alleged that around Oct. 17, 2007, Woodcock interviewed for a managing  consultant position at RCC Consultant’s Glen Allen, Va., facility and was  offered the position.  However, later in  that month, when RCC Consultants learned that Woodcock does not drive because  of his disability, the company rescinded the job offer.  Although Woodcock was fully qualified to  perform the duties of the managing consultant position, RCC Consultants  unlawfully refused to hire him because of his disability, the EEOC charged.

Title  I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits private employers from  discriminating against qualified individuals with disabilities in employment.  The EEOC filed suit (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. RCC  Consultants, Inc. Civil Action No. 3:11-cv-864 in U.S. District Court for  the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division) after first attempting to  reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. 

Pursuant  to the two-year consent decree resolving the litigation, RCC Consultants agreed  to pay $45,000 in monetary relief to Woodcock.   In addition, the company must also take other actions set forth in the  consent decree, including redistributing the company’s anti-discrimination  policy to each of its current employees; posting its anti-discrimination policy  in its facilities; providing annual ADA-specific training to its officers,  managers, supervisors and any employee authorized to hire new employees; and  posting a notice about the settlement.   Further, RCC Consultants 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 need to remember that a person who  can perform the job he or she seeks cannot be denied hire simply because of a  disability,” said Lynette A. Barnes, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Charlotte  District Office, whose jurisdiction includes Virginia.  “This resolution should serve as a reminder  that the EEOC will continue its efforts to ensure that employers make employment  decisions based on abilities and qualifications – not stereotypes or  assumptions.” 

© 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.