Skip to main content

Affiliated Computer Services, Inc., to Pay $55,000 To Settle EEOC Disability Discrimination Suit

INDIANAPOLIS – Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. (ACS), the company under contract with the State of Indiana to operate many of Indiana’s public benefits programs, will pay $55,000 to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.

The EEOC had charged in its suit (Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-00015-PPS-RBC in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division) that ACS and Alpha Rae Personnel, Inc., the staffing firm that supports the company, violated federal law by refusing to accommodate an employee’s known disabilities and by terminating her assignment to ACS instead.

Such conduct violates the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement.

A consent decree agreed to by the EEOC, ACS and Alpha Rae and entered by the court requires that for the next three years ACS and Alpha Rae take action to track and respond appropriately to requests for accommodation, post and distribute a policy of non-discrimination, train its employees on non-discrimination and report to the EEOC on progress in this area.

“Although we recently celebrated the 20-year anniversary of the ADA, some employers still make the serious mistake of basing job placement decisions on a person’s disabilities,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Laurie Young. “This settlement will send a message to all employers that failure to reasonably accommodate disabilities will not be tolerated, and this agency will take all necessary steps to ensure compliance with equal employment opportunity laws.”

The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws against employment discrimination. Further information is available at www.eeoc.gov.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

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.
Post a Comment
Read more

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...
3 comments
Read more

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 ...
Post a Comment
Read more