Introduction
This article highlights quotes from attorneys involved in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) employment discrimination matters that were active or reported in 2024. The common thread across these cases is practical: employers need clear communication about job requirements and an individual's ability to meet those requirements, with or without accommodation.
As you review each case, consider how a detailed, accurate description of essential job functions and their critical physical demands can shape outcomes. Strong documentation can clarify whether a candidate is unqualified, whether an accommodation is reasonable, or whether a good-faith interactive process can keep a capable employee working safely.
2024 EEOC case list
- 01/25/2024: EEOC v. 299 Madison Ave. LLC (Library Hotel)
- 02/08/2024: Jury verdict against McLane Northeast (ADA)
- 02/14/2024: EEOC v. Covenant Woods (ADEA and ADA)
01/25/2024: EEOC v. 299 Madison Ave. LLC d/b/a Library Hotel
“When receiving a request for accommodation, employers should first assess whether the request is reasonable and can be accomplished without disrupting business operations, as opposed to whether a request is contrary to a rigid universal application of a company policy. This approach may better inform decision makers so that they may engage in a good-faith interactive process with the employee and do not run afoul of the ADA.”
EEOC Trial Attorney Andres F. Puerta
Context
In this matter, the EEOC alleged that a front desk employee requested a simple accommodation (use of a chair or stool) because a disability made prolonged standing difficult. The EEOC said the hotel denied the request due to a standing-only policy and offered alternatives the employee could not use, leading to resignation as the employee's health deteriorated. The case resolved with monetary relief and policy and training requirements, including restrictions on enforcing standing-only policies when an employee's disability prevents standing for an entire shift. See the EEOC press release for details.
EEOC links
02/08/2024: Jury award (McLane Northeast, ADA)
“The law requires an even playing field to ensure that applicants with disabilities have the same job opportunities as all other candidates for open positions; but, as the jury found, that plainly did not happen here,”
Renay Oliver, EEOC Trial Attorney
“The jury clearly understood that what McLane did here was wrong. Deaf applicants, and all applicants with disabilities, deserve a fair chance to get jobs to enable them to support themselves and their families.”
Caitlin Brown, EEOC Trial Attorney
Context
The EEOC reported that a jury found McLane Northeast violated the ADA by refusing to interview and then refusing to hire a qualified Deaf applicant for two warehouse jobs after the company learned the applicant was Deaf. The EEOC said the jury awarded $1.675 million total, including back pay, emotional distress damages, and punitive damages. The key compliance takeaway is that hiring processes must not screen out qualified applicants based on disability, and employers should ensure their communication methods and follow-up steps are accessible and consistent.
EEOC links
- EEOC newsroom page
- EEOC bulletin (GovDelivery mirror)
- Earlier EEOC lawsuit announcement (background)
02/14/2024: EEOC v. Covenant Woods Senior Living, LLC and BrightSpace Senior Living, LLC (ADEA and ADA)
“The right to decide a retirement age lies with an employee, not their employer. Moreover, an employer may not use an actual or perceived disability as license to deem an employee unqualified for their position. The EEOC is committed to enforcing the ADEA and the ADA to protect the rights of aggrieved employees.”
Darrell Graham, District Director, Atlanta District Office
Context
The EEOC alleged that a retirement community fired a 78-year-old receptionist because of age and disability, including an assumption that a brief hospitalization meant the employee could not perform the job. The EEOC said the employee had a long tenure and had been recognized as employee of the year, and that she was replaced by significantly younger employees. The compliance lesson here is that decisions about retirement and fitness for duty must be grounded in objective, job-related information rather than assumptions about age or medical events. Employers should focus on the essential functions of the role, engage in the interactive process when disability is in play, and avoid age-based pressure or stereotypes.
