Skip to main content

St. John Health System Settles EEOC Disability Discrimination Lawsuit

TULSA, Okla. -- St. John Health System, Inc. of Tulsa will pay $100,000 and furnish other relief to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the agency announced today. The EEOC had charged that the company violated the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) by failing to reasonably accommodate a hearing-impaired operating room scrub technician.

According to the EEOC’s suit, LaQuita Reherman had been employed by St. John for approximately six years when she was removed from her scrub technician position in March 2006 after several physicians complained about her being hard of hearing. Reherman wears hearing aids in both ears, the EEOC said, but would have been able to hear doctors’ instructions adequately if it were not for their practice of playing loud music in the operating room. These disturbances, coupled with her hearing impairment, caused the problems, the EEOC said.

Reherman made it known to St. John that she needed assistance in finding another position, but the hospital made no effort to assist her. The hospital simply put her in another position temporarily and then told her to find a new job in the hospital system, the EEOC said. St. John terminated Reherman in June 2006 after she proved unable to find a vacant position.

Disability discrimination violates the ADA, which requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for employees’ disabilities as long as this does not pose an undue hardship on the business. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement.

Under the terms of the consent decree, filed today for approval in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma (EEOC and Reherman v. St. John Health System, Inc., 09CV624 GKF-TLW), St. John agreed to pay LaQuita Reherman $100,000 as damages. The company also agreed to provide disability discrimination training to all management and supervisory employees and to report all requests for reasonable accommodation to the EEOC for the next three years.

EEOC Senior Trial Attorney Melvin Kennedy stated, “St. John should have done more for Ms. Reherman than tell her to locate a vacant position within the hospital system. It is encouraging that this lawsuit settled so quickly and that St. John agreed to reporting provisions in the consent decree that will allow the EEOC to monitor its future responses to reasonable accommodation requests.”

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...