The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a lawsuit in federal court against CBAC Borrower LLC, doing business as Horseshoe Casino Baltimore, along with affiliated Caesars Management Co. LLC and Caesars Entertainment Inc., and alleged disability discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The suit arises from the treatment of a table games dealer who suffered a heart attack during a night shift in April 2023, was hospitalized, and required surgery before attempting to return to work.
According to the allegations, casino management and human resources were informed of his condition and medical leave needs, and the employee asked about alternative schedules, work hours, and other potential job modifications as accommodations connected to his disability.
The EEOC asserts that instead of engaging in the required interactive process, a table games manager told the dealer not to return to work if he had any medical restrictions, removed him from the schedule, and indicated he could take six weeks of leave while management internally decided to terminate his employment.
The employee allegedly was not informed that he had been fired and only discovered his termination later when he inquired about returning to work and the possibility of light duty, at which point he was told he must be able to work full duty with no restrictions and would not be considered for light duty because his heart condition was not related to a workers' compensation claim.
The EEOC contends that conditioning the dealer's return on having no medical restrictions, failing to communicate with him about reasonable accommodations, and deciding to fire him instead violated the ADA's prohibitions on disability discrimination and retaliation.
The EEOC seeks a jury trial, and back pay, compensatory, and punitive damages for the former dealer, as well as injunctive relief that would require policy changes, revised practices, and training to ensure compliance with the ADA.
Source: https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/eeoc-sues-horseshoe-casino-and-caesars-entertainment-companies-disability-discrimination
Commentary
In the above matter, the EEOC alleges the respondents failed to engage in the interactive process. The interactive process under the Americans with Disabilities Act is fundamentally a structured dialogue between employer and employee designed to identify and implement reasonable accommodations that enable the employee to perform the essential functions of the job.
The process begins when the employer becomes aware of a need for accommodation, which can occur through a direct request or through observations that an employee's medical or mental condition is affecting job performance, even if the employee does not use legal terms or explicitly mention the ADA.
Once triggered, the employer must respond promptly, acknowledge the potential accommodation issue, and open a good faith two?way conversation. Often, the employee's healthcare provider or other workplace disability expert will provide necessary information about reasonable accommodations. The process is always a case-by-case endeavor.
A key element of the process is analyzing the position to determine its essential functions and clarifying how the disability limits the employee's ability to perform those functions.
Employers are expected to gather enough information - sometimes including limited medical documentation - to understand functional limitations and appropriate accommodations. Tailor requests narrowly to what is necessary and keep all medical information confidential and separate from personnel files.
Potential accommodations may include modified schedules, job restructuring, assistive technology, changes in workplace policies, or temporary leave. Always consider effectiveness and whether an option would impose an undue hardship.
The employer does not have to adopt the employee's preferred option, but must be prepared to explain why alternatives are selected and to show that options were genuinely considered based on expert information rather than rejected reflexively.
Courts and enforcement agencies describe the interactive process as an ongoing obligation, meaning employers may need to revisit and adjust accommodations if circumstances change or an initial solution proves ineffective.
Timeliness is critical; long or unexplained delays in responding to requests, seeking documentation, or implementing agreed accommodations can themselves constitute a failure to engage in the process.
Documentation of each step - communications, medical information received, options considered, and reasons for decisions - serves both as a compliance tool and as evidence that the organization acted in good faith if its conduct is later challenged.
The process is explicitly reciprocal, and employees are expected to participate, provide requested information needed to assess limitations, and cooperate in exploring reasonable options; when an employee refuses to engage or withholds essential information, courts have recognized that the employer's accommodation duty may be limited.
From a loss prevention standpoint, consistently begin the process when warning signs appear and maintain clear, documented communication. Train managers to immediately notify those in the organization who are authorized to engage in the interactive process. This can help reduce exposure to EEOC charges, costly settlements, and adverse verdicts under the ADA.
Additional Sources: https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/enforcement-guidance-reasonable-accommodation-and-undue-hardship-under-ada; https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/eeoc/internal_eeo/EEOC-2018-Procedures-for-Providing-Reasonable-Accommodations-for-Individuals-with-Disabilities.pdf; https://www.doi.gov/sites/default/files/employee-resource-effective-interactive-process.pdf
