When: Thursday, September 14, 2017 8:00 a.m. – 4:30 p.m.

Where: New York Hilton Midtown, 1335 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019

Epstein Becker Green’s Annual Workforce Management Briefing will focus on the latest developments in labor and employment law, including:

  • Immigration
  • Global Executive Compensation
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Internal Cyber Threats
  • Pay Equity
  • People Analytics in Hiring
  • Gig Economy
  • Wage and Hour
  • Paid and Unpaid Leave
  • Trade Secret Misappropriation
  • Ethics

We will start the day with two morning Plenary Sessions. The first session is kicked off with Philip A. Miscimarra, Chairman of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

We are thrilled to welcome back speakers from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Marc Freedman and Katie Mahoney will speak on the latest policy developments in Washington, D.C., that impact employers nationwide during the second plenary session.

Morning and afternoon breakout workshop sessions are being led by attorneys at Epstein Becker Green – including some contributors to this blog! Commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Chai R. Feldblum, will be making remarks in the afternoon before attendees break into their afternoon workshops. We are also looking forward to hearing from our keynote speaker, Bret Baier, Chief Political Anchor of FOX News Channel and Anchor of Special Report with Bret Baier.

View the full briefing agenda and workshop descriptions here.

Visit the briefing website for more information and to register, and contact Sylwia Faszczewska or Elizabeth Gannon with questions. Seating is limited.

Dallas, TexasIn a decision impacting the interactive process, the Northern District of Texas held in EEOC v. Methodist Hospitals of Dallas, No. 3:2015-cv-03104 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 9, 2017), that employers do not violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) by requiring individuals with disabilities that need reassignment as a reasonable accommodation to compete for vacant positions.

Plaintiff, a former patient care technician, requested an accommodation after an on-the-job injury precluded her from performing the required duties of lifting and transporting patients. Though she met the minimum qualifications for two vacant positions, she was not chosen for the positions and was terminated. The EEOC alleged that the Hospital maintained an unlawful policy by requiring individuals with disabilities to compete for vacant positions where the individual was qualified for the position. The Hospital argued that the EEOC was attempting to mandate additional affirmative action not required by the ADA by asserting that the employer could not choose the most qualified applicant for a vacant position.

Central to the issue in this case, the ADA lists reassignment to a vacant position as a form of reasonable accommodation. 42 U.S.C. § 12111(9). The EEOC guidance on reasonable accommodation also states that an employee does not need to be the best qualified individual for the position in order to be reassigned to a vacant position. However, the circuits have split regarding whether an employer violates the ADA by requiring individuals with disabilities to compete with other candidates for reassignment to a vacant position. Although the Fifth Circuit has not directly addressed this issue, the court reviewed the authority in the Fifth Circuit regarding affirmative action for reassignment and determined that the Fifth Circuit would likely hold, similar to the Eleventh and Eighth Circuits, that the ADA does not require preferential treatment for reassignment and merely requires employers to allow individuals with disabilities to compete equally for vacant positions.  The court declined to follow contrary precedent in the Tenth and D.C. Circuits.

Employers should review their policies regarding reassignment for employees requesting an accommodation due to a disability and, as there is currently a circuit split, review the applicable law in their jurisdiction to ensure their policies are lawful. When an employee seeks reassignment to a vacant position as a reasonable accommodation, employers should work with counsel to determine whether they can require that employee to compete with other applicants for that position.

How will the Trump administration handle discrimination cases involving transgender employees? The EEOC’s pursuit of a sex discrimination claim on behalf of Aimee Stephens, a transgender woman who was terminated by a Michigan funeral home for expressing her intention to dress in conformance with her gender identity, will be an early indicator.

In a brief filed with the Sixth Circuit on January 26, 2017, Stephens argues that the interests of transgender individuals will not be adequately represented under the new administration. Under the Obama administration, the EEOC sued Stephens’ former employer, R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, for sex discrimination on her behalf. The funeral home owner argued permitting Stephens to dress as a woman would conflict with his Christian beliefs and pose a threat to his free exercise of religion. The Eastern District of Michigan dismissed the EEOC’s lawsuit in August 2016 on the grounds that the funeral home is exempt from Title VII under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”). Although the EEOC appealed to the Sixth Circuit in October 2016, Stephens filed a motion to intervene as plaintiff-appellant, citing her belief that the new administration would not adequately represent her interests.

Over the course of Obama’s presidency, the trend in federal government was the extension of protections for transgender individuals. Many federal agencies, including the EEOC, OFCCP, OSHA, and HHS, previously promulgated rules and guidance affording increased protections for transgender individuals. Numerous federal courts, including the First, Sixth, Ninth, and Eleventh circuits, have applied theories of sex stereotyping under Section 1983 or Title VII, resulting in protections for transgender individuals. Few courts, however, have found gender identity or transgender status is a protected class under Title VII. Indeed, the district court in G.R. & R.G. Funeral Homes rejected that position when presented by the EEOC.

Whether the EEOC will continue to aggressively pursue the expansion of Title VII to include transgender protections remains an open question. While still just a rumor, it has been reported that the Trump administration is considering an executive order that would provide individuals and organizations the ability to deny employment, as well as services and other benefits, to LGBT individuals on religious grounds. In her motion, Stephens references the removal of the White House webpage dedicated to LGBT rights, the federal government’s requests for extensions of time in other civil rights cases, and the President’s authority over EEOC appointments as reasons she believes her interests may not be adequately represented. Further, the current acting chair of the EEOC, Victoria Lipnic, was one of two commissioners who voted against the EEOC’s July 2015 decision that held that sexual orientation is included within the definition of sex for discrimination purposes under Title VII. The Trump administration also has rescinded guidance previously issued by the departments of Education and Justice under the Obama administration that took the position that the Title IX prohibitions of discrimination “on the basis of sex” require access to sex-segregated facilities based on gender identity.

On the other hand, the EEOC filed its opening brief with the Sixth Circuit just two weeks after Stephens moved to intervene, arguing that (a) discrimination based on transgender status and/or transitioning is inherently sex discrimination under Title VII; and (b) the RFRA does not provide the for-profit funeral home a defense in this case. This stance is consistent with that taken by the EEOC while Obama was in office. Further, Trump has indicated Executive Order 13672, which banned federal contractors from discriminating against LGBT employees, will stand.

Stephens’ case may have implications for the protection of transgender employees at the federal level, but employers need to keep in mind that many states explicitly prohibit discrimination against transgender workers. At least sixteen jurisdictions – including California, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and the District of Columbia – now include gender identity as a protected characteristic under their discrimination laws.

Employers are advised to familiarize themselves with their state and local laws, to take a proactive role in preventing transgender, or gender identity, discrimination in the workplace, and to have a plan in place to accommodate the potential needs of transgender workers.

With flu season quickly approaching, health care employers may be considering mandatory influenza vaccinations for their workforce. Mandatory vaccination policies may dramatically increase patient safety, but they may also cause friction within the workforce when employees object on religious grounds to being vaccinated.

While no federal and few state statutes address the legality of enforcing mandatory vaccination policies, the EEOC and private litigants recently have moved this issue forward in the courts. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), employees with sincerely held religious beliefs are entitled to a reasonable accommodation of those beliefs, provided that such accommodation does not create an undue hardship for their employer. This year, the EEOC has filed at least three separate lawsuits against hospitals in Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and North Carolina alleging failure to accommodate religious beliefs in relation to such hospitals’ respective mandatory influenza vaccination policies.[1]

These lawsuits follow shortly on the heels of a decision in the District Court of Massachusetts, granting summary judgment in favor of a hospital employer that terminated an employee who refused a mandatory flu vaccination because of her religious beliefs. In Robinson v. Children’s Hospital Boston, Civ. No. 14-10263 (D. Mass. Apr. 5, 2016), the defendant hospital implemented a policy requiring all persons who worked in or accessed patient care areas to be vaccinated against the flu to ensure the safest possible environment and highest possible care for its patients.

The plaintiff, one of the first hospital employees to interact with patients as they entered the emergency room, refused the flu vaccination for religious reasons and was permitted by the hospital to explore whether there was another internal position outside of patient care that would exempt her from the flu vaccine. The court concluded that the hospital’s efforts to locate another position for the plaintiff—including allowing her to use earned time off to search for employment elsewhere—and to label her termination a voluntary resignation to preserve her ability to re-apply for other hospital positions in the future, constituted a reasonable accommodation under Title VII.

The court also concluded that granting the plaintiff’s request not to be vaccinated would have caused the hospital an undue hardship because it would have increased the risk of transmitting influenza to the hospital’s already vulnerable patient population. The admissible evidence led the court to find that (i) health care employees are at a high risk for influenza exposure, which can be fatal to vulnerable patients; (ii) numerous medical organizations support mandatory influenza vaccination for health care workers; and (iii) the medical evidence in the record demonstrated that a vaccination is the single most effective way to prevent the transmission of the flu.

While the hospital’s policy in Robinson only covered patient-facing employees, health care employers with flu vaccination policies impacting all employees should be aware that they will be subject to heightened scrutiny by regulators such as the EEOC. For instance, in EEOC v. Baystate Medical Inc., Civ. No. 3:16-cv-30086 (D. Mass. June 2, 2016), Baystate’s policy required employees who refused the flu vaccination to wear a surgical mask at all times while working at the hospital’s facilities. The employee in question worked in human resources, had no patient contact, and argued that it was not reasonable for her to wear the mask because people complained that they could not understand what she was saying. Following several occasions in which the employee pulled the mask down away from her mouth so that people could understand her, the plaintiff was discharged for violating Baystate’s policy. While the facts have yet to be developed, these allegations were sufficient to prompt the EEOC to file suit.

Other courts addressing religious discrimination claims in this context also have indicated the importance of the employee’s interaction with patients in determining whether and to what extent a mandatory vaccination policy may be enforced. In Chenzira v. Cincinnati Children’s Hosp. Med. Ctr., Civ. No. 1:11-cv-00917 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 27, 2012), the plaintiff-employee alleged that her adherence to veganism prohibited her from receiving a flu shot. On a motion to dismiss, the court allowed a religious discrimination claim to proceed, finding that the plaintiff could subscribe to veganism with a sincerity equating to that of sincerely held religious views. Notably, the court made a point of stating that the decision did not address the safety of patients at the hospital, which was the hospital’s presumed justification for terminating the plaintiff. The court signaled that it would consider this justification in light of what, if any, contact the plaintiff had with patients, and/or what sort of risk her refusal to receive a vaccination could pose in the context of her employment. (The case later settled.)

Employers looking for additional guidance as to whether and to what extent they must accommodate an employee’s refusal be vaccinated against seasonal influenza also should look to any state or local laws that may impact their ability to mandate flu vaccinations. For instance, a New York statute requires people to be vaccinated if they are affiliated with or employed by a health care facility and who engage in activities that could potentially expose patients to influenza.[2] Those who decline the flu shot during flu season must wear a surgical mask while in areas where patients are normally present. The statute also requires health care facilities to supply such masks to personnel free of charge.

Takeaways

Particularly given the implications to patient safety, health care employers are well within their rights to implement a mandatory flu vaccination policy. Nonetheless, employers should be prepared to address requests for reasonable accommodation made by employees who decline a vaccination because of sincerely held religious beliefs. In those circumstances, employers should engage in the interactive process, with the following considerations in mind:

  • Consider the nature of the employee’s position, as you may have more difficulty in enforcing the policy against employees who do not routinely interact with patients. Courts are more likely to require an alternative accommodation for employees in non-patient-facing roles.
  • Determine whether the employee can be accommodated by wearing a surgical mask or by temporarily or permanently transferring that employee to another position that does not implicate patient safety.
  • Ensure that any refusal to be vaccinated originates from a sincerely held religious belief, but be aware that challenges to a sincerely held belief have been heavily scrutinized by the courts.

A version of this article originally appeared in the Take 5 newsletter Five Key Issues Impacting Health Care Employers.”

[1] EEOC v. St. Vincent Health Ctr., No. 16-224 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 22, 2016); EEOC v. Baystate Med. Ctr., Inc., No. 3:16-cv-30086 (D. Mass. June 6, 2016); EEOC v. Mission Hosp., Inc., No. 1:16-CV-00118 (W.D.N.C. Apr. 28, 2016).

[2] New York State Sanitary Code, 10 N.Y.C.R.R. § 2.59.

On November 4, 2016, the Western District of Pennsylvania held that the “because of sex” provision in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. In doing so, the court broke from the recent trend of federal courts that have felt compelled by prior precedent to dismiss sexual orientation discrimination claims.

In EEOC v. Scott Medical Health Center, P.C., the plaintiff (a gay male) alleged that he was subjected to repeated and unwelcome offensive comments regarding his sexual orientation and his relationship with a male partner, creating a hostile and offensive work environment that resulted in the plaintiff’s constructive discharge.  Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989), which held that discrimination on the basis of sex stereotyping is prohibited, the court concluded that “discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is, at its very core, sex stereotyping plain and simple; there is no line separating the two.”

This conclusion contradicts recent decisions in the Seventh Circuit and Southern District of New York, both of which have held that gender discrimination can be “disentangled” from sexual orientation discrimination, and have dismissed claims premised solely on sexual orientation discrimination allegations.  The Western District of Pennsylvania’s departure from prior precedent could signal the beginning of a split in authority that could eventually end up with this issue being considered by the Supreme Court.

This area of law is ripe for further litigation. In the short term, employers should continue to monitor the changing legal landscape and be mindful that other courts could also conclude the discrimination based on sexual orientation is prohibited under Title VII, as well as anti-discrimination provisions in other laws and regulations, such as Executive Order 13672 expressly barring federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.  Regardless of the federal court pronouncements, employers should be aware that various federal agencies are taking the same expansive view of the definition of discrimination on the basis of “sex.”  In the Final Rule implementing Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, for example, the Department of Health and Human Services expressly defines discrimination on the basis of sex to include sex stereotyping (and gender identity). Numerous states also expressly prohibit sexual orientation discrimination under their employment law.  Thus, employers seeking to comply with applicable state law and seeking to avoid scrutiny from the EEOC and other federal agencies should train their workforce to eliminate discriminatory or harassing behavior premised on sexual orientation, and review their policies to ensure that such discrimination is prohibited.

Featured on Employment Law This Week:  The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has issued new guidance on workplace retaliation.

The EEOC’s final guidance on retaliation includes concrete examples of retaliation issues that the courts have largely agreed upon, as well as expanded definitions of “adverse action” and “causal connection.” The guidance also describes “promising practices” for reducing the possibility of retaliation, including anti-retaliation training and proactive follow-up with potential targets. Retaliation has become the most frequent form of employment claim across business sectors. The percentage of EEOC charges in this area has almost doubled since the last guidance was issued. Our colleague David Marden is interviewed.

See below for the episode and read our blog post about the guidance.

On August 29, 2016, the EEOC issued its final Enforcement Guidance on Retaliation and Related Issues (Guidance) to replace its 1998 Compliance Manual section on retaliation, including tips on ADA interference. The Guidance reflects the Commission’s consideration of feedback received on the proposal from about 60 organizations and individuals following a 30-day public input period that ended February 24, 2016. The changes in the Guidance are in line with the EEOC’s efforts to broaden the conduct that would be deemed retaliatory as well as the concept of causation.

Along with the Guidance, the EEOC has issued two accompanying documents: a question-and-answer publication that summarizes the Guidance, and a short Small Business Fact Sheet that condenses the major points in the Guidance. The Guidance also provides “boxed” examples of actual and perceived retaliation that will be of great help to employers and employees.

The Guidance addresses retaliation under each of the statutes enforced by EEOC, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Equal Pay Act (EPA) and Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA).

Since 1998, the last time the EEOC issued a formal resource document on retaliation, the Supreme Court and the lower courts have issued numerous significant rulings regarding employment-related retaliation. Further, the percentage of EEOC charges alleging retaliation has essentially doubled (now nearly 45% of all charges). Retaliation is now the most frequently alleged basis of discrimination in all sectors, including the federal government workforce.

The guidance also addresses the interference provision under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits coercion, threats, or other acts that interfere with the exercise of ADA rights. The EEOC considers the scope of this separate interference provision broader than the anti-retaliation provision under the ADA.

In preparing the Guidance, the Commission analyzed courts’ interpretation and application of the law to specific facts, noting that, regarding many retaliation issues, the lower courts have been uniform in their interpretations of the relevant statutes. Where the Commission agreed with those interpretations, the Guidance explains the law on such issues with concrete examples. The Commission noted that there are cases where the lower courts have not consistently applied the law, or the EEOC’s interpretation of the law differs. In those instances, the Guidance sets forth the EEOC’s position and explains its analysis.

Elements of a Claim. The Guidance does not change the three well-established elements of a retaliation claim and leaves little doubt that the EEOC takes a broad view when defining each element:

  1. An employee’s participation in a protected activity, generally a complaint of discrimination or harassment.
  2. A materially adverse action taken by the employer/manager against the employee.
  3. A causal connection between the protected activity and adverse action.

The small business fact sheet provides a list of actions taken by applicants and employees that are protected from retaliation:

  • taking part in an internal or external investigation of employment discrimination, including harassment;
  • filing or being a witness in a charge, complaint, or lawsuit alleging discrimination;
  • communicating with a supervisor or manager about employment discrimination, including harassment;
  • answering questions during an employer investigation of alleged harassment;
  • refusing to follow orders that would result in discrimination;
  • resisting sexual advances, or intervening to protect others;
  • reporting an instance of harassment to a supervisor;
  • requesting accommodation of a disability or for a religious practice; or
  • asking managers or coworkers about salary information to uncover potentially discriminatory wages.

Protected Activity. In the Commission’s view, playing any role in an internal investigation (even in support of the employer) should be deemed to constitute protected participation. For example, an employee can issue a direct complaint (“participation”) or engage in “protected opposition” by communicating explicitly or implicitly opposition to perceived employment discrimination. According to the EEOC, an employee may make a broad or ambiguous complaint of unfair treatment because they may not know the specific requirements of the anti-discrimination laws and such communication would be considered protected opposition if the complaint would reasonably have been interpreted as opposition to employment discrimination.

While the Guidance states that the manner of opposition must be reasonable, the Guidance points out that the scope of the opposition clause is not limited to complaints made to the employer directly, and may include complaints made to coworkers, an attorney, others outside the company, or even publicly. According to the EEOC, employees’ complaints or opposition activities will be protected as long as their actions are based on reasonable, good faith that their assertions are accurate. Nonetheless, opposition to perceive discrimination “does not serve as a license for the employee to neglect job duties.”

Adverse Action. The Guidance seeks to expand the definition of “adverse action” to include activity that could be reasonably likely to deter protected activity even if it has no tangible effect on a person’s employment. According to the EEOC, adverse actions can be activities that are not work-related, or take place outside of work, and may even be taken against a third party who is closely linked to a complaining employee.

Causal Connection. The Guidance also expands what constitutes a causal connection between a protected activity and adverse action. Under the Commission’s interpretation of the “but-for” causation standard articulated in University of Texas Southwest Medical Center v. Nassar, that there can be multiple “but-for” causes, and retaliation need only be one of those but-for causes in order for the employee to prevail. Moreover, citing a Seventh Circuit decision (Ortiz v. Werner Enters., Inc.), the Guidance notes that causal connection may be established by combining different pieces of circumstantial evidence into a “convincing mosaic” showing retaliatory intent. Citing a decision where a termination that occurred five years after an employee filed a discrimination lawsuit defeated summary judgment, the Commission noted that it may go years back into a person’s employment history to find evidence of either a protected activity or an adverse action.

Guidance for Employers. The Commission includes a section in the Guidance on “promising practices” that it suggests may help reduce the risk of retaliation violations. While adhering to these practices is not a safe harbor, employers should take note of the list provided by the EEOC:

  • Including clear anti-retaliation language in written employment policies that provide practical guidance on what retaliation is and how it is avoided, with examples of conduct that managers, supervisors, and decision makers may not realize are actionable;
  • Taking proactive steps for avoiding actual or perceived retaliation, including practical guidance on interactions by managers and supervisors with employees who have lodged discrimination allegations against them;
  • Instituting a reporting mechanism for employee concerns about retaliation, including access to a mechanism for informal resolution; and
  • Providing a clear explanation to employees that retaliation can be subject to discipline, up to and including termination;
  • Providing all parties and witnesses to an alleged act of discrimination with information about how to avoid engaging in retaliation, and how to report alleged retaliation; and
  • Ensuring that someone with special knowledge of EEO guidance reviews proposed employment actions to ensure they are based on legitimate, non-discriminatory, non-retaliatory reasons.

Our colleague Linda B. Celauro, Senior Counsel at Epstein Becker Green, has a post on the Financial Services Employment Law blog that will be of interest to many of our readers in the health care industry: “Seventh Circuit Panel Finds That Title VII Does Not Cover Sexual Orientation Bias.

Following is an excerpt:

Bound by precedent, on July 28, 2016, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that sexual orientation discrimination is not sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The panel thereby affirmed the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana dismissing the claim of Kimberly Hively, a part-time adjunct professor at Ivy Tech Community College, that she was denied the opportunity for full-time employment on the basis of her sexual orientation.

The importance of the Seventh Circuit panel’s opinion is not in its precise holding but both (i) the in-depth discussion of Seventh Circuit precedence binding it, the decisions of all of the U.S. Courts of Appeals (except the Eleventh Circuit) that have held similarly, and Congress’s repeated rejection of legislation that would have extended Title VII’s protections to sexual orientation, and (ii) the multifaceted bases for its entreaties to the U.S. Supreme Court and the Congress to extend Title VII’s prohibition against sex discrimination to sexual orientation discrimination.

The Seventh Circuit panel highlighted the following reasons as to why the Supreme Court or Congress must consider extending Title VII’s protections to sexual orientation …

Read the full post here.

The District of Columbia Office of Human Rights recently partnered with the National LGBTQ Task Force to publish a resource guide, “Valuing Transgender Applicants & Employees: A Best Practices Guide for Employers” (the “Guide”), designed to support employers in creating workplace and hiring policies that prevent discrimination against transgender and gender-nonconforming individuals. The guide is meant to lay the framework for building a culture of inclusion in the workplace that goes beyond legal obligations.

The suggested best practices include ensuring managers and coworkers use the names and pronouns preferred by transgender employees, maintaining the confidentiality of employees’ gender identity, implementing gender-neutral dress codes, providing access to restroom facilities corresponding to employees’ gender identity, and building an environment in which harassment or off-color comments are not tolerated.

The Guide emphasizes communication between employers and their transgender or gender-nonconforming employees and applicants so that the employer may understand what transgender employees believe a safe and inclusive workplace should look like and respond accordingly.  Recognizing that each individual has different needs, employers are encouraged to work with transitioning employees to develop a plan for them to transition in the workplace.  That said, transgender employees are not expected to shoulder the responsibility of educating coworkers or of ensuring their comfort.  Particularly because DC law prohibits discrimination based on gender identity or expression, employers should establish clear rules requiring professional demeanor, prohibiting transphobic and other harassing behavior, and prompting quick responses to any violations.

Following DC regulations, the Guide also instructs employers to provide access to restrooms and other gender-specific facilities consistent with employees’ gender identity or expression. Consistent with guidance from the EEOC and OSHA, transgender employees should never be required to use a separate gender-neutral facility – even if a cisgender employee expresses discomfort about sharing a gendered facility with a transgendered coworker.  In that case, the cisgender employee should be offered the use of a separate facility.

While the Guide has particular applicability for employers that operate in the District of Columbia, all employers should take note, as the recommended best practices are consistent with the way federal agencies are interpreting and enforcing federal law.

Our colleague Frank C. Morris, Jr., attorney at Epstein Becker Green, has a post on the Financial Services Employment Law blog that will be of interest to many of our readers in the health care industry: “New Online Recruiting Accessibility Tool Could Help Forestall ADA Claims by Applicants With Disabilities.”

Following is an excerpt:

In recent years, employers have increasingly turned to web based recruiting technologies and online applications. For some potential job applicants, including individuals with disabilities, such as those who are blind or have low vision, online technologies for seeking positions can prove problematic. For example, some recruiting technologies and web-based job applications may not work for individuals with disabilities who use screen readers to access information on the web. The U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP) recently announced the launch of “TalentWorks.”

Read the full post here.