Former Sears Employee Receives $6.2M in Discrimination Suit
Sears Holdings Corp. has agreed to pay $6.2 million to a disabled worker after allegedly firing him illegally. This record settlement was the largest ever for the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency that investigates discrimination complaints and files lawsuits on behalf of victims.
Filed in 2004, the lawsuit stated that after John Bava was injured during the course of his job as a repair technician for Sears, the company fired him at the expiration of his workers? compensation leave. At the age of 58, Bava fell down a flight of stairs at a customer?s home, injuring his back, knees, and wrist. He said that he only found out that he had been fired when his wife?s discount card was rejected.
EEOC released documents during discovery that pointed to hundreds of other employees who faced termination in similar situations; the agency alleged that Sears did not consider reasonable accommodations that would have allowed these injured employees to return to their jobs.
As part of the settlement, a federal judge is requiring Sears to amend its workers? compensation leave policy to ensure that it abides by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
The ADA was enacted in 1990. Title I of the act covers employment, and provides that a covered entity shall not discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability. This applies to job application procedures, hiring, advancement, termination, workers? compensation, job training, and other aspects of employment.
Was Sears in the wrong when it came to firing Mr. Bava? At the very least, Sears seemed to think that it wasn?t worth the risk; the company spokesperson stated that the settlement was a way to avoid the time and expense of what could have been a lengthy litigation process.
Of course, it is possible that Mr. Bava?s case could provide precedent for future lawsuits that involve workers? compensation leave. An attorney for EEOC noted in a statement that the settlement is a ?bright line marker? for the fact that ?inflexible leave policies? are a violation of federal law. But what constitutes ?inflexible?? Could the alterations that Sears makes to its policies provide a benchmark for companies that want to do ?just enough? to abide by the ADA? Given the publicity surrounding this case, now might be a good time to examine those company policies.
Filed in 2004, the lawsuit stated that after John Bava was injured during the course of his job as a repair technician for Sears, the company fired him at the expiration of his workers? compensation leave. At the age of 58, Bava fell down a flight of stairs at a customer?s home, injuring his back, knees, and wrist. He said that he only found out that he had been fired when his wife?s discount card was rejected.
EEOC released documents during discovery that pointed to hundreds of other employees who faced termination in similar situations; the agency alleged that Sears did not consider reasonable accommodations that would have allowed these injured employees to return to their jobs.
As part of the settlement, a federal judge is requiring Sears to amend its workers? compensation leave policy to ensure that it abides by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
The ADA was enacted in 1990. Title I of the act covers employment, and provides that a covered entity shall not discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability. This applies to job application procedures, hiring, advancement, termination, workers? compensation, job training, and other aspects of employment.
Was Sears in the wrong when it came to firing Mr. Bava? At the very least, Sears seemed to think that it wasn?t worth the risk; the company spokesperson stated that the settlement was a way to avoid the time and expense of what could have been a lengthy litigation process.
Of course, it is possible that Mr. Bava?s case could provide precedent for future lawsuits that involve workers? compensation leave. An attorney for EEOC noted in a statement that the settlement is a ?bright line marker? for the fact that ?inflexible leave policies? are a violation of federal law. But what constitutes ?inflexible?? Could the alterations that Sears makes to its policies provide a benchmark for companies that want to do ?just enough? to abide by the ADA? Given the publicity surrounding this case, now might be a good time to examine those company policies.
Advertise on APSense
This advertising space is available.
Post Your Ad Here
Post Your Ad Here
Comments