EEOC Announces $50,000 Settlement with Auto Parts Retailer Over Failure to Hire Applicant with Cerebral Palsy Who Successfully Completed Internship.

Yesterday, the EEOC announced that it had reached a settlement with an auto parts retailer – Advance Stores Company, Inc. – where the store agreed to pay $50,000 and “to provide training on an annual basis to all of its managers, supervisors, and employees in its Norton, Va., store; post an employee notice regarding this settlement; and report any allegations of disability discrimination by job applicants at the company’s Norton location to the EEOC.” According to the allegations made in the EEOC’s lawsuit, the store violated the Americans With Disabilities Act when it refused to hire an applicant for a part-time sales position “because he has cerebral palsy. . . . The EEOC said that [the applicant] had successfully completed an internship as a salesperson at Advance Auto’s Staunton, Va., store through a training program in which he participated. The EEOC further charged that despite Sanders’ qualifications and experience obtained through the internship, Advance Auto did not hire him but did hire at least one other person who was less qualified than Sanders.” (EEOC v. Advance Stores Company, Inc. d/b/a Advance Auto Parts, Civil Action 02-08CV00011).

Insomniacs can read the full press release at http://www.eeoc.gov/press/3-9-09.html.

NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with an attorney.

EEOC Announces that Wal-Mart Will Pay $300K to Applicant with Cerebral Palsy

The EEOC announced last week that “Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. will pay $300,000 to a Hardin, Mo., man to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit.” The EEOC alleged in its lawsuit (EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 04-cv-0076 (W.D. Mo)) “that Wal-Mart refused to hire Steve Bradley, who has cerebral palsy and uses crutches or a wheelchair for mobility, when he applied for employment at its Richmond, Mo., store in 2001. At the time, the retail giant was preparing to open a new 24-hour Supercenter and was conducting mass hiring. Bradley applied for any available job, but during his interview he was questioned about his ability to work using his wheelchair and was told he was “best suited” for a greeter position. Ultimately, the company refused to hire him,” which the EEOC alleged violated the ADA.

In the proposed consent decree, which still requires court approval, the EEOC explained that “Wal-Mart agreed to pay $300,000 to Bradley, provide ADA training to managers at its Richmond store, notify job applicants about the decree and inform several Kansas City-area job service agencies that that the company seeks to employ qualified individuals with disabilities.”

“The settlement followed a February 2007 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No.06-1583 [8th Cir.]) that reversed a district court ruling dismissing the case. Wal-Mart had claimed that Bradley would pose a safety risk to himself or customers if he worked at the store using a wheelchair or crutches. In addition to finding that the EEOC presented sufficient evidence for the case to go to trial, the appeals court also held, . . . that an employer bears the burden of proof if it claims that a disabled employee or applicant poses a “direct threat” to the health or safety of himself or others.”

Insomniacs can read the full press release at http://www.eeoc.gov/press/4-17-08.html.

NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.