Articles Posted in Disability Discrimination

by

Overview: In Carta v. Wingate Healthcare, the MCAD found in favor of the Complainant, a 69-year-old and qualified handicapped individual who was terminated from her health care position. The MCAD awarded emotional distress damages and ordered the Respondent to conduct training of certain human resources employees after the Complainant was injured during the course of her employment and was subsequently terminated. After her injury, the Complainant returned to work on a part-time basis but was ultimately fired because she could not return to full-time work.

Finding the essential issue to be whether further extending the Complainant’s part-time work schedule was a reasonable accommodation, the hearing officer reasoned that that the Respondent did have a further obligation to the Complainant. The prognosis for the Complainant’s recovery was unclear, and so termination was premature. The evidence ultimately did not support a finding that the Complainant could have worked full time, however, so she was not entitled to lost wages beyond what she had already been compensated by worker’s compensation and a third-party lawsuit recovery relating to her injury.

Continue Reading →

by

Overview: In Savage v. Massachusetts Rehabilitation Commission, the MCAD found in favor of the Complainant and awarded substantial back pay and emotional distress damages for employment discrimination based on a disability. The Complainant had a history of dyslexia, attention deficit disorder, and chronic depression prior to being hired by the Respondent, a state agency. These disabilities were made apparent to the Respondent through the Complainant’s initial self-identification and several subsequent disclosures to various supervising staff.

The hearing officer found that the agency failed to engage in meaningful communication with the Complainant and failed to fashion meaningful accommodation for his disabilities. The officer further concluded that the Complainant’s training director “seemed more intent on terminating Complainant’s employment as quickly as possible while he was on probation to avoid dealing with the collective bargaining rights that would adhere once he became a non-probationary employee.” The Complainant had also been subjected to a hostile work environment due to demeaning, bully, and intimidating conduct by the training director.

Continue Reading →

by

Overview: In Bako v. Omega Foods, the MCAD found in favor of the Respondent and dismissed the complaint accusing the Dunkin’ Donuts operator of discrimination based on disability after the employee was not immediately returned to her prior shift following a nine-month medical leave of absence for breast cancer treatment. The hearing officer concluded that the Complainant had established a prima facie case of discrimination based on disability but determined that the Respondent met its burden of production by articulating “legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for not immediately rehiring” the Complainant. The Complainant did not provide evidence to show that the reasons she was not rehired were a pretext for discrimination.

Many disputed facts were resolved in favor of the Respondent, whose testimony was deemed credible and consistent with documentary evidence. In particular, the hearing officer credited the Respondent’s assertions that the Complainant rejected outright an offer of possible placement at a different location and that it was impossible to modify the work schedules of all 50 employees within the time period demanded by the Complainant to get her back to work in her original shift. Conversely, the hearing officer found the Complainant’s testimony to be “evasive and disingenuous is so many respects as to cast doubt on her credibility in general.”

Continue Reading →

by

Overview: In Cooper v. Raytheon, the MCAD found in favor of the Complainant and awarded emotional distress damages. This is the MCAD’s third decision in 2016. In finding that Raytheon engaged in handicap discrimination, the hearing officer noted that the Complainant’s managers knew that he suffered from a brain injury and that “when it came time to downgrade certain employees to comply with the bell curve requirement, he was an easy target, because of his cognitive impairments.” In doing so, the MCAD pointed to: (1) evidence that Complainant’s supervisor altered his performance review and made it less favorable than the original language provided by his peers; and (2) the scant evidence that “Complainant’s performance problems were disproportionate to others, who were not disabled.”

In weighing credibility, the hearing officer did not credit the testimony of a company witness who contended that she placed Complainant on a performance improvement plan to help him succeed; rather, the hearing officer pointed to evidence suggesting that the “real intent of the PIP was to force Complainant from his position.” Finally, the MCAD noted that an extension or cancellation of the PIP, and alternatively quarterly goals as the Complainant’s sister had requested, “would likely have been an effective reasonable accommodation” in light of the nature of Complainant’s disability.

Continue Reading →

by

Overview: In Lammlin v. Seder Foods, the MCAD found in favor of the Complainant and awarded back pay and emotional distress damages. This is the MCAD’s first decision in 2016. This case included direct evidence of discriminatory bias, where the Respondent testified at public hearing that he sought a “salesperson who not only spoke Spanish, but who was culturally Latino.” As expected, the hearing officer rejected Respondent’s perceived “cultural affinity” defense and applied the mixed-motive analysis. In arriving at emotional distress damages, the hearing officer noted “the meager evidence proffered regarding his emotional distress, including the absence of testimony regarding its nature, severity and duration” and ultimately characterized its award as de minimis.

Decision Date: January 20, 2016

Continue Reading →