Two Lawsuits Filed in Texas Disability Cases Involving Illness and Age

The Houston District Office of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has filed two separate lawsuits to enforce the ADA, demonstrating the on-going relevance of and need for the law in today’s workplace.

The lawsuits, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, addresses various alleged unlawful practices by these two employers illustrating the broad and necessary protections afforded by the ADA.

In addition, one of the employers, DynMcDermott Petroleum Operations Co. (“DynMcDermott”) is alleged to have violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”).

In the suit against ENGlobal Engineering Inc. (“ENGlobal”) (Civil Action No. 4:10-cv-XXXX), the EEOC alleges the company terminated the employee, Jeff Rose (“Mr. Rose”), because it regarded him as being disabled. ENGlobal is a publicly traded corporation providing engineering and professional services to the energy sector.

According to the EEOC, Mr. Rose worked for ENGlobal as a safety supervisor for approximately two weeks when, unbeknownst to him, he began to develop multiple sclerosis (“MS”) symptoms that did not debilitate nor substantially limit him. Mr. Rose informed his manager of the symptoms and kept him informed of the conversations he had with his doctors as they tried to ascertain what was wrong with him. As the manager learned more about Mr. Rose’s condition and realized he faced a potential MS diagnosis, the manager searched for a replacement and urged Mr. Rose to take medical leave despite the fact that he could continue working. After taking medical leave at his manager’s insistence, Mr. Rose presented the company with a doctor’s note stating he had clearance to return to work.

Although his position was available, ENGlobal’s human resources manager falsely told Mr. Rose it was not. Further, although the human resources manager then told Mr. Rose that ENGlobal would try to find him another position within the company, it took no such action. Three weeks later, ENGlobal hired another individual for Mr. Rose’s position. It is the EEOC’s position that ENGlobal’s management violated the ADA by incorrectly and impermissibly viewing Mr. Rose as substantially limited in his ability to perform the work of any job within the company.

The ADA was also violated by DynMcDermott when the company failed to hire an applicant for employment, the EEOC alleged in the lawsuit filed against this employer for actions occurring at its Winnie, Texas facility (Civil Action No. 4:10-cv-XXXX). The EEOC also maintains DynMcDermott’s actions violated the ADEA.

According to the lawsuit, DynMcDermott is a privately held corporation providing maintenance and operations services for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve managed by the U.S. Department of Energy. The EEOC alleges that the applicant and employee, Phillip (“Mike”) Swafford (“Mr. Swafford”), applied with DynMcDermott for a position he had previously held with the company. He was interviewed by and recommended for the position by both his former supervisor and the manager in charge of hiring for the position.

Nonetheless, the facility’s director, who had authority over both the supervisor and the hiring manager, stated to them and others, on at least two occasions, that Mr. Swafford should not be hired because of his age, then 56 years, and his wife’s cancer, which the director simply assumed would interfere with Mr. Swafford’s ability to perform his job duties. The EEOC alleges this assumption and DynMcDermott’s unwillingness to hire Swafford because of his age and his wife’s cancer violated both the ADA and the ADEA. DynMcDermott ultimately hired a 35-year-old applicant with no prior experience with the company for the position.

The EEOC filed the lawsuits after conciliation efforts to reach a voluntary settlement with each employer were unsuccessful.

In each lawsuit, the EEOC is seeking a permanent injunction prohibiting the relevant company from engaging in employment discrimination, as well as other non-monetary relief to address the unlawful practices. The EEOC is also seeking back pay, compensatory damages, punitive damages or liquidated damages, and other relief.

©2010 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved under International Copyright Law. If you would like permission to reprint this material, contact [email protected].