Latest news with #disabilityDiscrimination
Yahoo
a day ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
US Supreme Court curbs discrimination claims over lost retiree benefits
By Daniel Wiessner (Reuters) -Retirees cannot sue their former employers for disability discrimination after leaving their jobs, the U.S. Supreme Court decided on Friday in a ruling against a disabled former Florida firefighter that could make it harder to bring lawsuits seeking to restore lost retiree benefits. The ruling upheld a lower court's decision to dismiss a lawsuit by Karyn Stanley, who had worked as a firefighter in Sanford, that accused the city of discriminating against her by ending a health insurance subsidy for retirees. Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, who authored the ruling, wrote that only job applicants and current employees are "qualified individuals" covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act, a landmark federal law that prohibits discrimination based on disability. "In other words, the statute protects people, not benefits, from discrimination. And the statute also tells us who those people are: qualified individuals, those who hold or seek a job at the time of the defendant's alleged discrimination," Gorsuch wrote. Gorsuch was joined by the court's five other conservative justices and liberal Justice Elena Kagan. Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson penned separate dissenting opinions. While Stanley worked for Sanford, located in the suburbs of Orlando, the city changed its policy to limit health insurance coverage for disabled retirees to 24 months after they stopped working. Stanley retired from her job after two decades because her Parkinson's disease had made it impossible for her to work, according to court filings. She sued the city in 2020, claiming it discriminated against workers who retired early because of a disability by giving them a smaller healthcare subsidy than employees who retired after 25 years of service. The city in court filings has said its policy was lawful and necessary to contain costs related to employee benefits. Sanford covers insurance costs for workers who retire after 25 years of service until they turn 65, and had previously done so for employees who retired due to a disability regardless of how long they worked for the city. While Stanley worked for the city, it changed its policy to limit coverage for disabled retirees to 24 months after they stopped working. Stanley was 47 when she retired. Friday's decision will help reduce the legal risks that employers face when they change or terminate retirement benefits, according to Caroline Pieper, a Chicago-based lawyer with the firm Seyfarth Shaw, which represents employers. "While there are certainly other considerations ... this case should give employers more comfort under the ADA when they modify or reduce post-employment offerings," Pieper said, referring to the Americans with Disabilities Act. Friday's ruling affirmed decisions by a judge in Florida and the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which had dismissed Stanley's lawsuit.
Reuters
3 days ago
- Politics
- Reuters
US Supreme Court curbs discrimination claims over lost retiree benefits
June 20 (Reuters) - Retirees cannot sue their former employers for disability discrimination after leaving their jobs, the U.S. Supreme Court decided on Friday in a ruling against a disabled former Florida firefighter that could make it harder to bring lawsuits seeking to restore lost retiree benefits. The ruling, opens new tab upheld a lower court's decision to dismiss a lawsuit by Karyn Stanley, who had worked as a firefighter in Sanford, that accused the city of discriminating against her by ending a health insurance subsidy for retirees. Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, who authored the ruling, wrote that only job applicants and current employees are "qualified individuals" covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act, a landmark federal law that prohibits discrimination based on disability. "In other words, the statute protects people, not benefits, from discrimination. And the statute also tells us who those people are: qualified individuals, those who hold or seek a job at the time of the defendant's alleged discrimination," Gorsuch wrote. Gorsuch was joined by the court's five other conservative justices and liberal Justice Elena Kagan. Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson penned separate dissenting opinions. While Stanley worked for Sanford, located in the suburbs of Orlando, the city changed its policy to limit health insurance coverage for disabled retirees to 24 months after they stopped working. Stanley retired from her job after two decades because her Parkinson's disease had made it impossible for her to work, according to court filings. She sued the city in 2020, claiming it discriminated against workers who retired early because of a disability by giving them a smaller healthcare subsidy than employees who retired after 25 years of service. The city in court filings has said its policy was lawful and necessary to contain costs related to employee benefits. Sanford covers insurance costs for workers who retire after 25 years of service until they turn 65, and had previously done so for employees who retired due to a disability regardless of how long they worked for the city. While Stanley worked for the city, it changed its policy to limit coverage for disabled retirees to 24 months after they stopped working. Stanley was 47 when she retired. Friday's decision will help reduce the legal risks that employers face when they change or terminate retirement benefits, according to Caroline Pieper, a Chicago-based lawyer with the firm Seyfarth Shaw, which represents employers. "While there are certainly other considerations ... this case should give employers more comfort under the ADA when they modify or reduce post-employment offerings," Pieper said, referring to the Americans with Disabilities Act. Friday's ruling affirmed decisions by a judge in Florida and the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which had dismissed Stanley's lawsuit.
Irish Times
13-06-2025
- Irish Times
Airline passenger denied exit row seat because of autism is awarded €7,500
An airline has been ordered to pay a passenger €7,500 for refusing to let him sit in an exit row seat he had booked specially for extra legroom because he had disclosed that he was autistic. The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) made the award after upholding a complaint of disability discrimination and harassment in breach of the Equal Status Act brought against the airline in an anonymised decision published on Friday. The tribunal heard the difficulty arose when the man arrived to check in for a return flight to Dublin from London in March 2024. The claimant, whom the tribunal noted was 'autistic and uses a sleep apnoea machine', had written to the airline requesting special assistance before he left. In the letter, he referred specifically to difficulties with queuing and requiring space for the sleep apnoea machine, the tribunal heard. READ MORE 'All went well on the first leg,' he told the tribunal and he flew in seat 12A, which he had pre-booked. When he went to check in his baggage for his return flight on March 18th that year, he was told he had been moved out of the emergency exit row seat he had booked 'due to his disability', he said. His evidence was that he produced his medical certification and asked to have the matter 'resolved quickly and discreetly' so that he 'would not have to keep explaining his disability in the presence of other passengers'. He was told to speak to the cabin crew, he said. He was first to the boarding gate and spoke to a worker there who 'did not understand his difficulty', he said. By the time she had called over a colleague, he said, the gate was full of passengers and a queue was forming behind him. He 'again told the entire story'. The second worker told him that 'as a result of being autistic they would not let him sit at the emergency exit', he said. The claimant said it was 'humiliating and degrading' to have to discuss his diagnosis 'in front of a large crowd of onlookers' who 'all could hear what was happening'. Having explained that his disability did not amount to any 'cognitive or physical impairment' that would impair his ability to aid in an evacuation of the plane in an emergency, he was again told to speak with the cabin crew. When the time came to board, he was put in the second row and said he sat with his legs 'pinned up against the seats in front of him' and 'unable to move'. After asking twice to speak to a member of the cabin crew, one came and told him he could not sit in the emergency exit row 'because of his disability'. He remained in that seat for the rest of the flight, which he called a 'distressing, humiliating and degrading' experience. The passenger's position was that being required to repeatedly refer to his diagnosis in public because of the 'persistent' questions of airline staff amounted to harassment. In its defence of the claim, the airline's lawyers, Arthur Cox LLP, relied on safety regulations governing 'special categories of passengers'. The rules covered people requiring 'special conditions, assistance and/or devices when carried on a flight' and barred such passengers from being seated in seats which 'permit direct access to emergency exits', the tribunal was told. As the claimant had registered himself as a person with a disability, he therefore fell under the remit of those regulations, the airline's lawyers submitted. Adjudication officer Pat Brady wrote in his decision: 'A full reading of the regulations makes it clear the critical criterion is that of mobility, and its impact on safety in an emergency.' He said the regulations 'do not provide a blanket ban on seating any person who may be a special category passenger at an emergency exit row, unless the nature of that person's disability or lack of mobility pose a reasonable impediment to the safe evacuation of the aircraft'. Mr Brady wrote that what happened at the boarding gate could only be described as 'a shambles'. He concluded that the passenger had been discriminated against in breach of the Equal Status Act by being denied reasonable accommodation for his disability as well as suffering harassment. Mr Brady directed the airline to pay the claimant €7,500 for discriminatory treatment. He also ordered the airline to establish procedures for ascertaining the 'capacity and mobility' of any passenger seeking the special category status according to the regulations 'before declining a booking in any part of an aircraft'.
Telegraph
10-06-2025
- Telegraph
Calling a colleague ‘weirdo' could be discrimination
Calling a colleague a 'weirdo' could be discrimination, a tribunal has ruled. Using the term, even if you are trying to put someone at ease, may 'violate their dignity' and breach equality laws, a judge has said. The ruling came in the case of Nicholas James, an autistic children's centre worker, who complained that he could not work with background music. Malcolm King, Mr James's boss, asked him: 'Why can't you be ordinary and perfect like the rest of us?' before referring to him as a 'weirdo', the tribunal heard. Mr King described Mr James's requested work adjustments as 'a pain in the arse', and likened the effect of Mr James's autism disorder on his work to having a hangover after a 'good booze-up'. The worker has now won more than £17,000 in compensation for disability discrimination and harassment. Comments 'violated his dignity' Employment Judge Stephen Jenkins said: 'We considered that the references to accommodating [Mr James's] requests as being a 'pain in the arse', to questioning why [Mr James] could not be 'ordinary like the rest of us', and to [Mr James] being a 'weirdo'...would clearly have been unwanted to [Mr James]. '[Mr James] himself clearly perceived the comments as violating his dignity, and we considered that, objectively, it was reasonable to conclude that the words had the effect of violating [Mr James]'s dignity. 'They were comments from [...] the most senior person within the executive structure of the organisation, and were comments which Mr King himself has, on reflection, agreed were inappropriate. 'In the circumstances, we were satisfied that the comments did involve unwanted conduct which had the effect of violating [Mr James's] dignity.' Requested no background music The hearing in Cardiff was told that Mr James had been working for The Venture, which provides community-based services for young people, in Wrexham since 2021. He was employed as a project worker on its inclusion project which provided play work for children with neurodevelopmental conditions, primarily autism. He later began working at events at which music was played on the radio, referred to as 'open access sessions' because they were open to the public. However, the tribunal heard he could not work with music playing in the background because this impacted his ability 'to concentrate on other matters'. It was not played while he worked at these sessions, but it continued to be played at public events that Venture held a few times a year. Mr King told him that to stop music being played at these events would be 'quite wrong' as the events needed to be 'enjoyable' for guests. Mr James reportedly felt 'continually disregarded because of his condition', 'accused of wanting to spoil children's fun' and 'not able to do his job'. Compensation for discrimination In November, another meeting took place between Mr James and several more senior employees at the company. The tribunal heard: 'After some opening comments which were complimentary about [Mr James's] qualities as a play worker, Mr King noted that for him, at the heart of it, they needed [Mr James's] gifts and they needed to find ways of making that work, 'even though it's a pain in the arse'. 'He followed that with what [Mr James] described as an ill-timed joke, saying, 'why can't you be ordinary and perfect like the rest of us? But no, jokes aside, having always been something of a weirdo myself, I have some sympathy'.' Mr James was subsequently removed from his role at the open access sessions and was later suspended from his role at the organisation because of concerns regarding his work and an alleged failure to report an incident. He then sued for discrimination. His employers have been ordered to pay him £17,154.86 in total, including £15,000 for injury to feelings. His other claims failed.
Daily Mail
10-06-2025
- Daily Mail
Calling a colleague a 'weirdo' is discrimination as it may 'violate their dignity', tribunal rules
Calling a colleague a 'weirdo' is discrimination and could allow them to claim thousands of pounds compensation, a tribunal has ruled. An autistic children's centre staff member who complained he couldn't work with background music was asked in jest why he couldn't be 'ordinary and perfect like the rest of us'. His boss, Malcolm King, also compared the worker's disorder to having a hangover after a 'good booze up' and said the requests he made to him at work were a 'pain in the arse'. Employee Nicholas James has now won more than £17,000 in compensation for disability discrimination and harassment. Employment Judge Stephen Jenkins said: 'We considered that the references to accommodating [Mr James]'s requests as being a "pain in the arse", to questioning why [Mr James] could not be "ordinary like the rest of us", and to [Mr James] being a "weirdo"...would clearly have been unwanted to [Mr James]. '[Mr James] himself clearly perceived the comments as violating his dignity, and we considered that, objectively, it was reasonable to conclude that the words had the effect of violating [Mr James]'s dignity. 'They were comments most senior person within the executive structure of the organisation, and were comments which Mr King himself has, on reflection, agreed were inappropriate. 'In the circumstances, we were satisfied that the comments did involve unwanted conduct which had the effect of violating [Mr James]'s dignity.' The hearing in Cardiff was told Mr James worked for The Venture - an organisation which provides community-based services mainly for young people - in Wrexham from July 2021. He was employed as a project worker on their inclusion project which provided play work for children with neurodevelopmental conditions, primarily autism. Mr James later began working at 'open access' sessions, which were open to the public with music played through a radio. However, the tribunal heard he could not work with the music playing in the background, because this impacted his 'ability to concentrate on other matters'. It was therefore not played while he worked at these sessions, but it continued to be played at public events Venture held a few times a year. Chief Officer Mr King told Mr James that to stop music being played at these events would be 'quite wrong' as they needed to be 'enjoyable' for guests. '[Mr James] noted that he felt that he was continually disregarded because of his condition, and that he felt accused of wanting to spoil children's fun and that he was not able to do his job,' the tribunal heard. In November, another meeting took place between Mr James and several more senior employees at the company. 'After some opening comments which were complimentary about [Mr James]'s qualities as a play worker, Mr King noted that for him, at the heart of it, they needed [Mr James]'s gifts and they needed to find ways of making that work, "even though it's a pain in the arse". 'He followed that with what [Mr James] described as an ill-timed joke saying, "Why can't you be ordinary and perfect like the rest of us? But no, jokes aside, having always been something of a weirdo myself, I have some sympathy".' Mr James was subsequently removed from his role at open access sessions. At a meeting in February 2024, Mr King raised the issue of safeguarding for Mr James and the children he worked with. The tribunal heard: 'He compared the need to be alert to the children's needs to staff attending work the morning after a night out saying, "So that if staff come to work on a Sunday and they've been out till late on a Saturday night, having a good booze up and they turn up on the playground on a Sunday to do a Sunday shift and they're not really in great shape to be able to pick up on those things".' Mr James was later suspended from his role because of 'an issue of concern regarding [his] work and an alleged failure to report an incident'. He then sued for discrimination. The tribunal found that The Venture's decision to to remove Mr James from the open access sessions was not 'appropriate'. The judge said the 'reference to the impact on [Mr James]'s ability to work due to potential mental health issues, and the comparison of that with someone being impacted by a "good booze up" was unwanted conduct'. EJ Jenkins said: 'The discussion involved [sic] around Mr King's own concerns that the Claimant's work and care for children would be impacted by his mental health situation, and we felt that that concern was trivialised by Mr King's comparison of that with someone attending work suffering with a hangover. 'We were again therefore satisfied that this comment did have the effect of violating [Mr James]'s dignity.' Mr James's claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments succeeded in part. His complaints of victimisation and unauthorised deductions from wages were successful. His other claims failed. Mr James' employers have been ordered to pay him him £17,154.86 in total including £15,000 for injury to feelings.
