Virginia International Terminals, LLC, a marine terminal operator based in Norfolk, Virginia, agreed to pay $20,000 and provide additional relief to resolve a federal disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
The case involved an employee who operated a hustler truck at Norfolk International Terminals and was denied reinstatement to his position after receiving an implantable cardioverter defibrillator following a cardiac event.
Although medically cleared to return to work, the company allegedly refused to allow him to resume his job and instead offered lower-paying work, assuming he posed a safety risk.
The EEOC asserted that this conduct violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. Under a three-year consent decree, the company will revise its policies, conduct ADA compliance training for managers, post a notice to employees, and provide periodic compliance reports to the EEOC.
Commentary
Employers should never presume that an employee's injury or medical condition automatically disqualifies them from performing their job duties.
Making assumptions about an employee's ability to work can expose an organization to significant liability under the Americans with Disabilities Act and similar state disability laws.
When an employee is released by their healthcare provider to return to work, they should be allowed to work. If they are unable to perform their job duties because of an impairment, or are performing them in such a way that they are endangering themselves or others, then the employer must engage in the interactive process to determine whether any reasonable accommodations exist.
The most effective approach is to maintain open communication with the employee and their healthcare provider. By sharing relevant job descriptions, discussing medical restrictions, and exploring practical modifications, an employer can reach a solution that supports both operational needs and employee well-being. This process not only ensures compliance but also strengthens workforce trust and retention.
Many physical or medical limitations can be accommodated through changes in scheduling, equipment, or workflow, often at minimal cost. Taking the time to engage in this interactive process demonstrates good faith and protects the organization from complaints, lawsuits, or damage to its reputation.
The final takeaway is that assuming incapacity is both risky and unnecessary.
