As Vice President, Human Resources for Blood Systems, I have been involved with this case throughout the entire period it covered. As with all legal challenges, there are two sides to the issue.
In this case, Blood Systems´ leave policy was revised during the early-1990´s to comply with the ADA based on guidelines published in a Technical Assistance Manual prepared and distributed by the EEOC during January 1992 to assist employers with implementing the ADA. One of the provisions in the manual (Section 7.10) stated, "An employer may establish attendance and leave policies that are uniformly applied to all employees, regardless of disability, but may not refuse leave needed by an employee with a disability if other employees get such leave." Blood Systems´ no fault automatic termination policy when an employee reached the maximum length of leave permitted by the policy was, in fact, uniformly applied to all employees, whether they were out for ADA-covered, other medical but not ADA-covered, or personal reasons. Therefore, Blood Systems leave policy, consistent with the guidance provided by the EEOC, did not provide leave to other employees that those with ADA-covered disabilities did not receive.
An employee who was terminated in 1994 for exceeding the maximum length of leave permitted by Blood Systems´ policy filed an EEOC charge, to which Blood Systems responded early in 1995 to the EEOC with full disclosure regarding its no fault automatic termination policy and clarifying that employees so affected were invited to reapply for employment when they were released by their physician to return to work. The EEOC did not respond to Blood Systems about this charge until several years later (1998), at which time they informed Blood Systems that they believed the no fault automatic termination policy violated the ADA. During this time, Blood Systems had, in good faith, continued to apply its no fault automatic termination policy and had monitored case law as it developed in this area to ensure its policy remained in compliance.
During March 1999, the EEOC issued a revised Interpretive Guidance manual for the ADA, in which it stated that no fault termination policies are not acceptable. That same month, EEOC filed a class action lawsuit against Blood Systems that included terminations going back to 1994. Following distribution of the revised guidance manual by the EEOC in March 1999, Blood Systems, voluntarily and on its own initiative, revised its no fault automatic termination approach to leaves covered by the ADA to consider extension of such leaves on a case-by-case basis. Throughout the entire period covered by the EEOC lawsuit, Blood Systems operated in good faith, relied on what it believed to be applicable guidance provided by the EEOC, and believed that it was operating in compliance with the requirements established under the ADA.
Larry Reese
Vice President, Human Resources
Blood Systems, Inc.
Lrreese[at]bloodsystems.org
The HR industry´s premier online community and resource for Human Resource professionals: HR, human resources, HR community, human resources community, HR best practices, best practices in human resources, online communities for HR, HR articles, HR news, human resources articles, human resources news, HR events, leadership, performance management, staffing and recruitment, benefits, compensation, staffing, recruitment, workforce acquisition, human capital management, HR management, human resources management, HR metrics and measurement, organizational development, executive coaching, HR law, employment law, labor relations, hiring employees, HR outsourcing, human resources outsourcing, training and development
hr.com.
human resources management resources for hr professionals. |
HR menus
|
HR events
|
HR Sitemap