©2024 Seyfarth Shaw LLP EEOC-INITIATED LITIGATION: 2043 EDITION | 65 he is HIV-positive. The hospital argued that the decision was not discriminatory because the individual could not perform his role safely because his HIV-positive status could pose a risk to others. The EEOC countered with the argument that the individual had a small rate of transmission because of a low viral load. According to the verdict form, the jury found that the prospective safety officer could not perform the safety officer job without posing a direct threat to the health and safety of patients and staff, meaning he was not qualified for the role. EEOC v. West Meade Place LLP, 3:18-cv-00101 (M.D. Tenn.) On October 25, 2022, after a four-day trial, a jury awarded $6,000 in compensatory damages after determining that an employee was terminated because West Meade Place LLP regarded the employee as having a physical or mental impairment. According to the EEOC, employee Carma Kean received treatment for anxiety for over a decade and regularly took prescription medication and received treatment from a doctor. Nine months after Kean was hired as a laundry technician at West Meade Place, she requested intermittent leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Because she had not worked for the nursing home for a year, her request was denied. According to the lawsuit filed by the EEOC, after Kean rejected West Meade Place’s offer of unpaid leave, the nursing home told Kean to seek a note from her doctor clearing her to return to work or face termination because she was unable to perform her job duties. The EEOC stated that though Kean’s doctor contacted West Meade Place to find out what was needed in order for Kean to return to work, the nursing home terminated her without engaging in the interactive process required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). According to the verdict form, the jury determined that the EEOC proved that West Meade Place terminated Carma Jean because it regarded her as having a physical or mental impairment and awarded $6,000 in compensatory damages, but also determined that punitive damages were not appropriate. EEOC v. Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital Inc., 1:17-cv-00201 (M.D. Ga.) On November 2, 2022, after a three-day trial, a jury determined that Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital was not liable for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) when terminating an employee. The EEOC alleged that Wendy Kelley was terminated because she missed a meeting due to an anxiety attack which caused her to faint and the meeting to be cancelled. The EEOC also argued that Kelley asked for two weeks of leave to receive treatment for the medical condition that purportedly caused her to faint. Kelley’s doctor restricted her from working during that time to manage an increase in her prescription dosage. Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital argued that general anxiety and the side effects of Kelley’s medication did not rise to the level of a disability covered under the ADA. The hospital also asserted that Kelley was terminated because she would not commit to working on certain Saturdays to cover for a colleague on maternity leave. The hospital also argued that Kelley refused an accommodation that it offered, which it was not legally obligated to do because Kelley was not disabled as considered under the ADA. The jurors concluded that the EEOC failed to produce sufficient evidence to show that Kelley had a disability covered by the ADA. The jury also concluded that the hospital did not illegally fire Kelley in retaliation for her having sought a reasonable accommodation.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4