Otis Worldwide Corp., popularly known as Otis Elevator Co., is facing a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for allegedly violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. The EEOC is accusing the Farmington, Connecticut-based company of not providing reasonable accommodation to an assistant mechanic with a disability and then retaliating against him by placing him on unpaid leave. The worker has autism spectrum disorder and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, which made him sensitive to loud ambient or vocal noises, and affected his ability to think and concentrate while on construction sites.
The ADA’s Requirements
According to the complaint filed by the EEOC, the employee requested a reasonable accommodation from Otis Elevator but was not given one. The company then placed him on unpaid leave for a foot injury, but refused to let him return to work for months despite doctor’s notes giving the go-ahead. The EEOC is seeking back pay, front pay, damages, and injunctive relief for the worker and is calling for measures to prevent disability discrimination in the future.
Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, employers are mandated to provide reasonable accommodations for workers with disabilities, including those with invisible disabilities such as chronic fatigue, diabetes, and depression. Jeffrey Burstein, regional attorney for the EEOC’s New York district office, emphasized that Otis Elevator violated the ADA by not providing reasonable accommodation for an employee with qualified disabilities. He added that “an employee was left in the lurch for months, without pay, just because he requested accommodation for his disabilities. The EEOC has stepped in to right this wrong.”
Retaliation and Unpaid Leave
Reasonable accommodations are measures that companies can take to help a person with a disability perform their job, which can include flexible working conditions, schedule changes, or making the site wheelchair-accessible. In this case, the Otis Elevator worker requested to be reassigned to a role or environment with fewer competing auditory inputs, vocal or otherwise, and talked with the HR department about finding a position that would accommodate his disabilities. However, the company allegedly relocated him to work with a construction department adjuster on assignments that were removed from the noisy construction sites, but also reassigned him to construction site duties, which caused problems for his disabilities and posed a risk to his and others’ safety.
The EEOC has pursued several cases featuring invisible disabilities in recent years, including a Hobby Lobby in Kansas that ran afoul of the ADA for refusing to let a cashier use her service dog to help with symptoms caused by PTSD, anxiety, and depression over safety concerns, and a Subway franchisee in Arizona that failed to accommodate a worker with autism and then fired that employee after four shifts.
The Otis Elevator case underscores the importance of companies providing reasonable accommodations for workers with disabilities, including those with invisible disabilities. It is a reminder that the ADA mandates employers to provide an environment that is safe and comfortable for all employees, regardless of their disability status. The EEOC’s action against Otis Elevator serves as a warning to all employers that they must comply with the law and avoid discrimination against employees with disabilities.