EEOC Documents 2009 Payouts for Disability Discrimination
In its annual report to Congress, the EEOC reported that in fiscal year 2009 it filed 21,451 charges of disability discrimination, a 10 percent jump from the year before.
April 30, 2010 at 08:00 PM
4 minute read
Employees suffering from back troubles or depression, or who were regarded as disabled by their employers, got the largest total payouts in 2009 for disability discrimination charges filed to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
In its annual report to Congress, the EEOC reported that in fiscal year 2009 it filed 21,451 charges of disability discrimination, a 10 percent jump from the year before.
In round numbers, employers paid $68 million last year to resolve (without litigation) disability discrimination complaints to the EEOC–a 19 percent jump from the year before.
Nearly $11 million was paid by employers who adversely treated 528 employees across the country who were perceived by those employers to be disabled.
Another $7 million went to 479 employees who complained of discrimination because of back ailments. Five million dollars went to 265 workers with other orthopedic problems.
Discrimination based on psychological impairments also cost employers big bucks. There were cumulative payouts of $8 million for 204 employees with depression, $3 million for 140 people with anxiety disorders, $2 million for 137 people with manic depression, and nearly $4 million for 43 people with “other” psychological disorders.
Employers also doled out cash for discriminating against employees with cancer ($4 million), diabetes ($3 million), neurological impairments ($3 million), and heart conditions and cardiovascular impairments ($2 million).
This year the agency predicts a new category of discrimination will create substantial claims. The EEOC says it “conservatively” projects 1,000 charges of genetic discrimination in 2010 under the new Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act of 2008. Effective Nov. 1, 2009, the law prohibits public and private employers from using genetic information about individuals when making employment decisions. In 2009, genetic discrimination led to one settlement of $124, 437.
Employees suffering from back troubles or depression, or who were regarded as disabled by their employers, got the largest total payouts in 2009 for disability discrimination charges filed to the
In its annual report to Congress, the EEOC reported that in fiscal year 2009 it filed 21,451 charges of disability discrimination, a 10 percent jump from the year before.
In round numbers, employers paid $68 million last year to resolve (without litigation) disability discrimination complaints to the EEOC–a 19 percent jump from the year before.
Nearly $11 million was paid by employers who adversely treated 528 employees across the country who were perceived by those employers to be disabled.
Another $7 million went to 479 employees who complained of discrimination because of back ailments. Five million dollars went to 265 workers with other orthopedic problems.
Discrimination based on psychological impairments also cost employers big bucks. There were cumulative payouts of $8 million for 204 employees with depression, $3 million for 140 people with anxiety disorders, $2 million for 137 people with manic depression, and nearly $4 million for 43 people with “other” psychological disorders.
Employers also doled out cash for discriminating against employees with cancer ($4 million), diabetes ($3 million), neurological impairments ($3 million), and heart conditions and cardiovascular impairments ($2 million).
This year the agency predicts a new category of discrimination will create substantial claims. The EEOC says it “conservatively” projects 1,000 charges of genetic discrimination in 2010 under the new Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act of 2008. Effective Nov. 1, 2009, the law prohibits public and private employers from using genetic information about individuals when making employment decisions. In 2009, genetic discrimination led to one settlement of $124, 437.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1Big Law Partner Co-Launches Startup Aiming to Transform Fund Formation Process
- 2How the Court of Public Opinion Should Factor Into Litigation Strategy
- 3Debevoise Lures Another SDNY Alum, Adding Criminal Division Chief
- 4Cooley Promotes NY Office Leader to Global Litigation Department Chair
- 5What Happens When Lateral Partners’ Guaranteed Compensation Ends?
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250