Advertisement

June 19, 2013

United Road Towing to Pay $380,000 to Resolve EEOC Disability Discrimination Suit

Nationwide Towing Company  Failed to Provide Reasonable Accommodations to Class of Employees With  Disabilities, Federal Agency Charged

United  Road Towing, Inc., a Mokena, Ill.-based towing company, will pay $380,000 to 13  claimants and provide other relief resolving a disability discrimination  lawsuit, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced.  A federal district court judge in Chicago  entered a consent decree ending the litigation on Wednesday, June 20, 2012.  

The EEOC’s  lawsuit, which was filed Sept. 30, 2009, charged that United Road Towing had  failed to provide reasonable accommodations to a class of employees with  disabilities.   The complaint highlighted United Road Towing’s  inflexible medical leave policy and practice of terminating employees with  disabilities at the end of medical leaves rather bringing them back to work  with reasonable accommodation.  The  alleged discrimination took place in Chicago, Phoenix, San Diego, Indianapolis,  Las Vegas and Los Angeles.

The EEOC alleged  that such conduct violates the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). The EEOC  filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case  No. 10-cv-6259) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement  through its conciliation process.

In addition to  providing monetary relief to the 13 claimants, the consent decree includes  injunctive relief. The decree prohibits the company from discriminating against  those with disabilities and requires the implementation of a reasonable  accommodations policy.  It also requires  training on the ADA for the company’s management.

The EEOC  lawsuit was preceded by an administrative investigation and efforts to  voluntarily resolve the matter through the agency’s statutory conciliation  process, both of which were managed by the Director of the EEOC’s Chicago  District, John Rowe.

“The purpose of the ADA is to allow persons  with disabilities to be productive members of the work force,” said Regional  Attorney John Hendrickson of the EEOC’s Chicago District Office.  “A company cannot thwart this purpose by  depriving disabled workers of the accom­modations they need to remain active  workers.”

Supervisory  Trial Attorney Diane Smason added, “We are pleased that United Road Towing resolved  this case.  The consent decree will  ensure that the company makes reasonable accommodations available to employees  with disabilities who need them.”

In addition to  Hendrickson and Smason, the EEOC was represented by Trial Attorneys Brandi  Davis, June Calhoun, and Laurie Elkin.   The  EEOC Chicago District Office is responsible for processing charges of  discrimination, administrative enforcement, and the conduct of agency  litigation in Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa and North and South Dakota,  with Area Offices in Milwaukee and Minneapolis.

© 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.