EEOC Updates Disability Guidance Documents

Pursuant to the agency’s Strategic Plan, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has revised and updated four disability guidance documents. Among other goals outlined in the Strategic Plan is to ensure the EEOC “provides up-to-date guidance on the requirements of antidiscrimination laws.” To that end, the agency has made available revised question and answer documents on how the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) applies to applicants and employees with cancer, diabetes, epilepsy, and intellectual disabilities.

According to the EEOC:

the revised documents reflect the changes to the definition of disability made by the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) that make it easier to conclude that individuals with a wide range of impairments, including cancer, diabetes, epilepsy, and intellectual disabilities, are protected by the ADA. Each of the documents also answers questions about topics such as: when an employer may obtain medical information from applicants and employees; what types of reasonable accommodations individuals with these particular disabilities might need; how an employer should handle safety concerns; and what an employer should do to prevent and correct disability-based harassment.

Photo credit: timmy

EEOC Issues Guidance on the Interplay between Educational Requirements and the ADA

After an informal discussion letter the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued in November 2011 raised more questions than it answered, the agency decided to release additional guidance on when an employer potentially violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by requiring employees to have a high school diploma. In the discussion letter, the EEOC stated that:

If an employer adopts a high school diploma requirement for a job, and that requirement “screens out” an individual who is unable to graduate because of a learning disability that meets the ADA’s definition of “disability,” the employer may not apply the standard unless it can demonstrate that the diploma requirement is job related and consistent with business necessity. The employer will not be able to make this showing, for example, if the functions in question can easily be performed by someone who does not have a diploma.

Even if the diploma requirement is job related and consistent with business necessity, the employer may still have to determine whether a particular applicant whose learning disability prevents him from meeting it can perform the essential functions of the job, with or without a reasonable accommodation.

According to the EEOC, “[t]here has been significant commentary and conjecture about the meaning and scope of the letter.” To clarify the legality of requiring a high school diploma under the ADA, the EEOC posted a series of questions and answers to its website.

Through these Q&As the EEOC explains that employers may continue to have high school diploma requirements. However, the employer may have to allow individuals who claim to have a learning disability that prevents them from earning a diploma “to demonstrate qualification for the job in some other way.” Such methods may include consideration of relevant work experience or allowing the applicant to demonstrate that he or she can perform the essential job functions.

The guidance stipulates, however, that the ADA “only protects someone whose disability makes it impossible for him or her to get a diploma. It would not protect someone who simply decided not to get a high school diploma.” An employer would be permitted to require applicants to prove that they have the alleged disability and that the disability prevented them from meeting the high school diploma requirement.

In addition, the guidance states that an employer is still permitted to hire the most qualified person for the job, and does not have to give preference to the individual with the disability over someone who can perform the job better.

Photo credit: pixhook

EEOC Meeting will Discuss Leave as a Reasonable Accommodation

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) will hold a meeting open to the public to discuss, among other topics, the use of leave as a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). According to the meeting agenda, which is subject to change, invited panelists will discuss the EEOC’s current position and policy statements on the topic and provide advice on how to comply with the law and appropriately grant leave to employees. Question-and-answer sessions will follow each discussion. The meeting will be held on Wednesday, June 8, 2011 at 9:30 A.M. EST in the Commission Meeting Room located on the first floor of the EEOC Office Building, 131 “M” Street, NE, Washington, D.C. 20507. Since seating is limited, observers are encouraged to arrive 30 minutes in advance of the meeting.

Photo credit: Alex Nikada

Employee Health Risk Assessment Can Violate the ADA, According to EEOC Opinion Letter

In an informal opinion letter released October 6, 2009, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) determined that requiring employees to complete a health risk assessment as a precondition to receiving payment from an employer-funded health reimbursement arrangement can violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in certain circumstances.

The letter, written by EEOC Assistant Legal Counsel Peggy Mastroianni, was in response to an employer that asked whether requiring employees to answer more than 100 questions in several categories, including “Personal Health,” “Health Choices-Alcohol and Tobacco,” “Health Changes,” and “Family Health History,” as a prerequisite to receiving health expense reimbursement under an employer-funded health reimbursement plan would violate the ADA. Mastroianni explained that the ADA permits employers to make disability-related inquiries and obtain medical information from employees in certain circumstances, such as if the inquiry is job-related and consistent with business necessity, is part of a follow-up to a request for a reasonable accommodation, or is part of a voluntary wellness program. A program is considered “voluntary” if the employees are neither required to participate nor penalized for non participation.

In evaluating the employer’s risk assessment questionnaire to determine whether the questions were permissible in the letter-writer’s situation, Mastroianni alluded to the recently-proposed regulations implemented to comply with the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA), which list a number of conditions that would be automatically deemed disabilities under the ADA. For example, Mastroianni wrote that asking employees about how often they feel depressed; whether they have ever been told that they have conditions such as asthma, cancer, health disease, or diabetes, is a disability-related question. In a footnote, Mastroianni also mentions that as of November 21, 2009, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) will prohibit employers from obtaining any genetic information (including family medical history) from employees except in very limited circumstances. Mastroianni points out that while asking employees about a relative’s health would not likely elicit information about whether an employee has a disability, GINA would prohibit such inquiries.

In this particular situation, Mastroianni claimed that providing the questionnaire as a prerequisite for obtaining health expense reimbursement did not appear to be job-related and consistent with business necessity. Because the assessment was asked of all employees, there was no indication that a particular employee was unable to do his or her job, or would pose a direct threat to the workplace. Moreover, the questions were not part of a request for a reasonable accommodation, nor were they asked to monitor employees in positions of public safety. Mastroianni also emphasized that even if the health risk assessment were part of an employee wellness program, it could not be considered “voluntary” because declining to respond to the questions would penalize employees by rendering them ineligible for health expense reimbursement.

Mastroianni explained, however, that certain questions did not appear to be disability-related, such as those directed towards the employee’s self-care and health choices. Questions in these categories included how many servings of fruit or vegetables the employee eats, and how much the employee exercises. According to Mastroianni, these questions “are not likely to elicit information about a disability and, therefore, are not subject to the ADA’s restrictions.”

Although opinion letters are not formal positions taken by the EEOC, they do provide an indication as to how the agency would react if presented with a similar set of circumstances in a lawsuit. Employers, therefore, should be mindful of the types of questions asked of employees to ensure they can not be construed as disability-related, nor seek an employee’s genetic information.