U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued the following announcement on June 5.
Union Pacific Railroad Company will pay $260,000 and furnish other relief to settle a disability discrimination case brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced.
According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, Union Pacific engaged in unlawful discrimination at the Ogilvie Transportation Center in Chicago, Illinois, when it refused to allow an employee who once had a brain tumor to return to work as a custodian, a position Union Pacific contended was “safety-critical.” EEOC’s suit contended that Union Pacific failed to conduct an appropriate individualized assessment to determine whether the employee could safely perform the essential functions of the job. Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Union Pacific agreed to settle the lawsuit before filing an answer to the EEOC’s complaint. It denies the allegations.
Under a two-year consent decree, agreed to by the parties and entered by the court, Union Pacific will pay $260,000 to the former employee. Union Pacific has also agreed to train a set of its Chicago service unit employees on the ADA’s protections and, for the term of the decree, to report to EEOC all future complaints of disability discrimination and denials of requests to return to work after a medical leave of absence.
Gregory Gochanour, the EEOC’s regional attorney in Chicago, said of the lawsuit, “We are pleased that Union Pacific was willing to work with EEOC to resolve this matter before either side had incurred the costs and burdens of a protracted litigation process. Though Union Pacific disagrees with EEOC as to what occurred in this case, it was willing to join with EEOC in making a critical assessment of how it could have done better.”
Julianne Bowman, EEOC’s district director in Chicago, added, “The EEOC appreciates that Union Pacific agreed to compensate the aggrieved individual and to improve their ADA compliance moving forward. Other employers would be wise to consider whether their own procedures for returning individuals to work are ADA-compliant.”
Original source can be found here.