The owner of a Kentucky Fried Chicken franchise told a manager with bipolar disorder that she couldn’t take her medication while working there and then forced her to flush it down the toilet, according to a lawsuit.
The complaint, filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), alleges that those actions and others violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
The employee, the EEOC says, was promoted to shift manager shortly after her hiring. A few months later, she told the restaurant’s owner that she had an appointment scheduled with her therapist. In response to follow-up questions, she disclosed that she was taking medication prescribed for bipolar disorder.
The owner told her she couldn’t be on such a prescription and work at the restaurant and that she “needed Jesus and not medication.” He then required her to flush her medication down the toilet.
After meeting with her doctor, the manager told the restaurant’s owner that she intended to continue taking her medication. In response, he instructed her not to return to work, the complaint says (EEOC v. Hester Foods, Inc., d/b/a Kentucky Fried Chicken, No. 3:17-cv-00034 (S.D. Ga., June 7, 2017)).
According to the EEOC, the owner’s actions violated the ADA. “Managers and owners cannot force employees to forgo medical care or prescribed medications to keep their job,” said Bernice Williams-Kimbrough, an EEOC district director, in a press release.
“Whether an employee works for a large corporation or a local restaurant, she has a right to be protected from discriminatory actions by employers,” added Antonette Sewell, an EEOC regional attorney. “We want employers of all sizes to understand their duties under the law and for employees to report such actions when they occur.”
The EEOC’s suit requests back pay, compensatory damages, and punitive damages.
Employer Takeaway
According to an EEOC guidance document, Disability-Related Inquiries and Medical Examinations of Employees Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, an employer generally can’t ask all employees what prescription medications they are taking because such a broad inquiry isn’t “job-related and consistent with business necessity,” as the ADA requires for disability-related questions.
In limited circumstances, however, certain employers may be able to demonstrate that it is job-related and consistent with business necessity to require employees in positions affecting public safety—pilots or armed police officers, for example—to report when they are taking medication that may affect their ability to perform essential functions, the EEOC says. However, the commission cautions that the employer must be able to demonstrate that an employee’s inability or impaired ability to perform essential functions will result in a direct threat.
And “direct threat” is a difficult standard to meet, in the EEOC’s view. It requires a significant risk of substantial harm that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation, according to the agency’s regulations. Direct threat determinations must be based on an individualized assessment of an individual’s present ability to safely perform the essential functions of the job, considering a reasonable medical judgment that relies on the most current medical knowledge and/or best available objective evidence, the EEOC says.
 Kate McGovern Tornone is an editor at BLR. She has almost 10 years’ experience covering a variety of employment law topics and currently writes for HR Daily Advisor and HR.BLR.com. Before coming to BLR, she served as editor of Thompson Information Services’ ADA and FLSA publications, co-authored the Guide to the ADA Amendments Act, and published several special reports. She graduated from The Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C., with a B.A. in media studies. |