The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") issued a press release today announcing that it entered into a consent decree with FedEx Ground to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit brought pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The federal lawsuit was filed on behalf of deaf and hard-of-hearing package handlers and applicants to those positions alleging that FedEx Ground denied deaf and hard-of-hearing package handlers reasonable accommodations and denied applicants employment because of their hearing related disabilities.

The consent decree entitles the 229 aggrieved individuals to a share of the $3.3 million settlement. In addition, the settlement requires FedEx Ground to provide accommodations to deaf and hard-of-hearing package handlers including access to live and video remote sign language interpreting, closed captioning on videos and provision of non-audible cues (i.e. vibration) on scanning equipment. Finally, the consent decree requires that FedEx Ground institute safety measures to protect hearing compromised package handlers including ensuring that motorized equipment include visual warning lights and providing personal notification devices that will notify hearing compromised handlers of an emergency.

This settlement should serve as a reminder to employers to ensure that procedures are in place for employees to request a reasonable accommodation and that accomodation requests are granted to the extent that they are reasonable and can assist employees in performing the essential functions of their positions.

It's time to make lemonade out of those lemons and fill up your half cup of coffee! We have the technology to run businesses remotely and Coronavirus is the motivation for everyone to use it. This means the future will involve a drastic decline in daily office commuting with a corresponding uptick in new real estate investment opportunities. Trendsetters and HGTV Stars Tom and Mickey join us to explore New York's exurban areas that are poised to explode. Plus we break down when to invest and teach you how to time the market before 2021.

The Suffolk County Legislature recently passed a "Ban the Box" law which will prohibit all employers in Suffolk County with 15 or more employees from inquiring as to a candidate's criminal conviction history during the application process. 

An employer cannot consider an applicant's criminal conviction history until after an application has been submitted and the initial interview has been conducted. An employer may only deny employment based on an applicant's criminal conviction history after conducting an individualized inquiry and concluding that the criminal conviction "bears a direct relationship to the duties and responsibilities of the position sought, or that hiring would pose an unreasonable risk to the property or to the safety of individuals or the general public."

The law specifically exempts the Suffolk County Police Department, the Suffolk County Department of Fire, Rescue and Emergency Services, public or private schools and any public or private provider of care or supervision for children, young adults, or physically or mentally disabled individuals. 

An aggrieved individual may file a claim with the Suffolk County Human Rights Commission or file a civil lawsuit. Employers in Suffolk County should immediately adjust their hiring practices and policies to avoid substantial liability.

The law is effective as of August 25, 2020.

Nassau County Supreme Court Justice Jeffrey Brown struck down Nassau County’s $355 fee to verify a property’s section, block and lot due to it being unlawful and unconstitutional.

In Falk v. Nassau County, the Plaintiff alleged that Nassau County excessive fees for tax map certification letters (TMCLs) as issued pursuant to Nassau County Administrative Code § 6-33.0. These TMCLs are issued by the Nassau County Department of Assessments and must be filed with real property documents when submitted to the Nassau County Clerk for recording. Plaintiff alleged that the fees are excessive and not reasonably necessary to maintain the County’s real property registry and such fees are taxes as their purpose really is for general revenue. In this regard, the Plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment deeming Administrative Code § 6-33.0 unconstitutional because it is excessive and an unlawful tax.

Among other reasons, the court granted the Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and found the TMCL fees unconstitutional as it was established that its purpose was for general revenue purposes only and that the fee itself is “indisputably disproportionate to the cost associated with its issuance.” Further, the Court found that they are excessive and not tied to the County’s responsibility in maintaining its property registry nor were such fees assessed or estimated on the basis of studies or statistics.

Nassau County is expected to file an appeal to Judge Brown’s decision. Stay tuned.