Target Pays $160,000 Settlement for Failing to Accommodate
Target Corp. has agreed to pay $160,000 to settle federal allegations that it discriminated against an employee with cerebral palsy. The case was brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which alleged that Target had cut the hours of Jeremy Schott, an employee of an Orange County, California Target, and that Target had failed to make reasonable accommodations for Schott's disability.
According to court records, Schott was originally hired int 2002 at a part-time stocker and later worked as a cart attendant. Schott's cerebral palsy caused a seizure disorder and some cognitive difficulties, but it was alleged that he could perform all of his job duties with the help of a coach.
Schott performed his job well, and even received an award for his work performance. However, in 2004, after he took a medical leave following a seizure, Target reduced his hours to as little as eight hours per week. The EEOC also alleged that the company failed to ensure Schott's parents or job coach were present during performance reviews and other work meetings. Perhaps most damning of all, the EEOC asserted that Target had failed to engage in any meaningful discussions with Schott regarding possible accommodations.
Under the settlement, Target agreed to pay Schott $5,000 in lost wages and $155,000 in compensation for emotional pain and suffering.
Lesson for all businesses: Employers sometimes attempt to justify termination of a disabled employee without any meaningful accommodation discussion by arguing that the terminated employee never requested it. United Airlines, the airline that breaks guitars, made such an argument. As United Airlines learned, that argument will not fly with California courts.
The Second District Court of Appeals held that the law does not require an employee to somehow "invoke" the protections of the law; they are already there. If the employer knows or should have known that the disability existed, it is the employer's duty to open the dialog for reasonable accommodation.
Sometimes an employee will deny being disabled, until he is terminated for poor job performance and then claims it was disability discrimination. In that case, an employer might find some protection. The court ruled that an employer has no duty to accommodate an employee who denies having a disability. Prillman v. United Air Lines, Inc. (1997).
