We have written before about the EEOC’s increased focus on the potential disparate impact of employers’ use of background checks in screening applicants for employment, and of a recent federal appeals court decision that put up a significant road block in the EEOC’s efforts to prove disparate impact caused by credit checks as a screening tool.
A diabetic employee who quit her job in response to the employer’s rejection of her suggested “reasonable accommodation” cannot support claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), because she failed to participate in the interactive process in good faith, according to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Every year at this time we like to offer our loyal readers a pre-publication preview of our annual report on developments and trends in EEOC-initiated litigation.
In perusing the EEOC’s tweets (yes, I do that for all of you), I came across a shout-out for a memo on workers’ compensation and the ADA that was co-written by one of the EEOC’s attorneys, Aaron Konopasky, and an outside medical professional.
I don’t actually have the answer to that. But someone else will soon – BMW Manufacturing Co., who is being sued by the EEOC regarding BMW’s use of criminal background checks.