Skip to main content

Home Depot to Pay $100,000 to Settle EEOC Disability Discrimination Suit

BALTIMORE - The world's largest home improvement specialty retailer will pay $100,000 and furnish other relief to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today. The EEOC had charged that Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc. failed to provide a reasonable accommodation for a cashier with cancer at its Towson, Md., store and then fired her because of her condition.

The EEOC said that Judy Henderson, a cashier who consistently received favorable performance evaluations during her 13-year tenure with Home Depot, requested unpaid leave for surgery to remove a tumor. EEOC contended that Home Depot initially accommodated her disability by granting her unpaid leave, but then advised Henderson that she would be terminated if she did not advise the company of her status. EEOC charged that even though Henderson promptly sent medical documentation confirming when she would be medically released to return to work in October 2010, the retailer did not respond to her medical notes and instead fired her. Home Depot told Henderson she was being let go due to a lack of work, but EEOC claimed that was but a subterfuge for disability discrimination. Before, when there had been a seasonal lack of work, Henderson had been temporarily laid off as opposed to permanently terminated. Further, the company hired two cashiers at the Towson store after Henderson submitted medical documentation that she would soon be able to return to work. Additional cashiers were hired at nearby locations.

It is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to fire someone on the basis of a disability. The ADA also requires an employer to provide a reasonable accommodation unless the employer can show it would be an undue hardship. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Southern Division, Civil Action No. 12-cv-01952, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

In addition to the monetary relief to Henderson, the consent decree settling the suit enjoins the home improvement retailer from further denying reasonable accommodations or otherwise discriminating against individuals with disabilities. Home Depot must provide anti-discrimination training, with an emphasis on unpaid leave as a medical accommodation, to all store managers, assistant store managers and human resources staff in the district covering the Towson store and post a notice regarding the resolution of the lawsuit.

"Employers must give unpaid leave as a reasonable accommodation unless they can prove it would be a significant cost or disruption to its business," said EEOC Philadelphia District Director Spencer H. Lewis, Jr. "It can be difficult for a major nationwide retailer the size of Home Depot to show how a few extra weeks of unpaid leave would be an undue hardship."

EEOC regional attorney Debra M. Lawrence added, "It flies in the face of common sense and common decency to refuse to work with an employee who is battling cancer. We appreciate Home Depot's willingness to work with us to resolve this lawsuit quickly. In addition to the monetary relief for Ms. Henderson, the injunctive relief and training requirements will benefit all people with disabilities in that district."

According to its website, https://corporate.homedepot.com, The Home Depot, Inc. is the world's largest home improvement specialty retailer with fiscal 2011 retail sales of $70.4 billion and earnings of $3.9 billion. The Home Depot has more than 2,200 retail stores in the United States (including Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands and the territory of Guam), Canada, Mexico and China.

The Philadelphia District Office of the EEOC oversees Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, West Virginia and parts of New Jersey and Ohio.

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 ...