Skip to main content

EEOC Sues Haven Manor For Refusing To Accept Hearing-Impaired Certified Nursing Assistant

EEOC Sues Haven Manor For Refusing To Accept Hearing-Impaired Certified Nursing Assistant

Lincoln Assisted Living Facility Violated Federal Law, Agency Charged

LINCOLN, Neb. – Haven Manor, Inc. violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) when it refused to accept temporary placement of Amanda Huff, a hearing-impaired certified nursing assistant (CNA), at its assisted living facility in Lincoln, Neb., the U.S. Equal Employment Oppor­tunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed today.

In its lawsuit (Case No. 4:10-cv-03108), filed in U.S. District Court in Lincoln, the EEOC claimed that in September 2007, Willingham Health Services, a staffing agency, sent Amanda Huff to Haven Manor in response for a request for a CNA to cover short-staffing on the evening shift. The EEOC further alleges that after Huff, an excellent lip reader, spent about 20 minutes in orientation with a Haven Manor representative, she asked if she could have someone set her pager to vibrate rather than produce an audible alert. It was at this time that representatives of Haven Manor discovered that Huff is hearing-impaired. A Haven Manor representative informed Huff that she could not work the scheduled shift because of her hearing impairment and sent her away.

Such alleged conduct violates the ADA, which prohibits employment discrimination based on a disability. Huff filed a discrimination charge, which the Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission (NEOC) investigated. The EEOC filed suit only after both the NEOC and EEOC attempted to reach a voluntary settlement with Haven Manor.

“Americans with disabilities overcome innumerable obstacles throughout their lives in order to be able to compete on equal footing with people who are not disabled,” said EEOC attorney Melvin Kennedy. “The ADA and the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 were enacted to prevent employers from denying employees with disabilities the equal opportunity to compete for jobs, promotions and other benefits of employment.”

James R. Neely, Jr., the EEOC’s St. Louis district director, added, “By now, all employers should be aware of their obligations under the ADA. The EEOC will vigorously enforce the ADA and bring to justice those employers who will not follow the law.”

The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the Commission is available on the agency’s web site at www.eeoc.gov.

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 ...