» Austin Employment Attorney on Recent Disability Discrimination Lawsuit

Austin Employment Attorney on Recent Disability Discrimination Lawsuit

Austin, TX (Law Firm Newswire) July 19, 2012 - Stevens Transport, a refrigerated transport company based in the Dallas area, will pay $50,000 in settlement for a disability lawsuit filed in federal court, according to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

Austin Business Litigation Lawyer and Employment Attorney, Gregory D. Jordan

Austin Employment Attorney, Gregory D. Jordan

The lawsuit alleged that the company refused to hire a paraplegic man because of his disability. The man had applied for positions in management.

“The EEOC only files lawsuits against employers in a very small percentage of the matters in which employees file charges of discrimination,” said Gregory D. Jordan, an Austin employment lawyer. “The pursuit of this disability lawsuit suggests the EEOC may be becoming more involved in disability claims now that the 2009 amendments to the Americans with Disabilities Act have become better understood.”

Andrew Scott became a paraplegic after an automobile collision in 2003. According to the lawsuit, filed in the Northern District of Texas, he was turned down for two positions in management at Stevens Transport because of his disability.

The lawsuit alleges that Scott was contacted by the company after he posted his resume on a website for job applicants. Scott has an economics degree and an M.B.A. After a successful telephone interview, Stevens Transport asked Scott to come in for an in-person interview, and the company then learned of his disability.

The company's management informed Scott during the interview that operations moved at a quick pace, and they were concerned he would not be able to keep up. According to the EEOC, after much communication between Scott and the company, he was told that he would not be hired for either of two open management positions.

The EEOC argued that Stevens Transport was in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits employers from refusing to hire a qualified applicant because of a disability. After trying to reach a voluntary settlement, the EEOC filed the lawsuit in federal court. The EEOC said that the company's actions clearly violated the law, and were also counter-productive for the company.

In 2009, the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (ADAAA) took effect, extending ADA coverage. In 2011, the EEOC received more than 25,000 ADA charges, a 21 percent increase from 2009.

Law Offices of Gregory D. Jordan
5608 Parkcrest Drive, Suite 310
Austin, Texas 78731
Call: 512-419-0684

Other Practice Areas offered by the Law Offices of Gregory D. Jordan:

  • Business litigation
  • Employment law
  • Oil and gas law
  • Patent, trademark and copyright litigation
  • Real estate and construction litigation
    • Eight ex-employees of Texas sanitation company claim racial discrimination
      Eight African American employees of a Texas sanitation company have filed a lawsuit claiming discrimination and retaliation. Dantrell Patterson, Lamonte Young, Demetrius Patterson, Tadarious Dixon, Keithdrick Patterson, Jarvis Hill, Jermaine Bell and Derrick Robert filed the lawsuit against Sanitation Solutions Inc. in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas on April 20. The [...]
    • Pipeline owners file $300 million breach of contract lawsuit against midstream operator
      An amended breach of contract lawsuit was filed by Magellan Midstream Partners and Plains All American Pipeline against Stampede Energy, seeking over $300 million in damages over an oil transport deal. The lawsuit claims that Stampede did not meet minimum volume obligations on the BridgeTex pipeline from March 2015 through 2016, breaching its contract. The [...]
    • Texas appeals court’s decision shows importance of wording in noncompete agreements
      A recent decision by a Texas appeals court demonstrates that the wording of a noncompete agreement must be precise. In the case, East Texas Copy Systems, Inc. v. Player, the Court of Appeals in Texarkana ruled that a noncompete agreement was nonbinding due to the language used in the agreement. As part of the sale [...]

    See other news sources publishing this article. BETA | Tags: , , , , ,



    Get headlines from Law Firm Newswire sent right to your inbox.

    * indicates required