Dive Brief:
- Hospital gift shop chain Lori’s Gifts will pay $600,000 to resolve claims that it refused to hire job candidates with disabilities and screened them using criteria that did not actually correspond to essential job functions, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced Thursday.
- In a 2023 complaint, EEOC alleged that Lori’s Gifts maintained pre-employment screening policies requiring candidates to answer whether they could walk or stand for up to five hours and lift up to 30 pounds, even though neither requirement was job-related nor consistent with business necessity. Candidates answering “no” to either question were allegedly deemed unqualified and automatically rejected.
- The alleged conduct violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and the 1991 Civil Rights Act, EEOC claimed. The parties’ two-year consent decree provides relief, including an injunction prohibiting Lori’s Gifts from making unlawful pre-employment inquiries. The company denied the claims in an email to HR Dive.
Dive Insight:
The case may serve as a reminder to employers to maintain accurate job descriptions that accurately reflect a role’s essential functions. Doing so is a core component of ADA compliance, EEOC has said, and employers can determine essential functions by evaluating a number of factors, such as the actual work experience of previous and past employees in the same job and the degree of expertise or skill required to perform a given function.
Notably, EEOC’s complaint described the experience of one plaintiff who interviewed for a job with Lori’s Gifts. The candidate allegedly went to a store to speak to a hiring manager and informed the manager that she had a physical impairment that limited her ability to walk or stand. The manager acknowledged that the store had a stool the applicants sit periodically on and even said that she had used the same stool during her own shift.
However, Lori’s Gifts later informed the candidate post-interview that standing for five hours was required and that she would not be hired if she could not do so, EEOC claimed. The company then filled the open position with another candidate.
Employers might need to be aware that a job function is not necessarily essential just because it appears in a job description. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals noted in a 2018 decision that while job descriptions can provide evidence of a job’s essential functions, they are “not dispositive,” and that courts must also look to the actual reality of the performance of the job.
In the case of Lori’s Gifts, EEOC claimed that many of the listed responsibilities for store employees could be performed in intervals of standing and sitting. It also alleged that, while the company’s challenged descriptions required candidates to be able to lift 30-pound boxes of merchandise, such boxes could be opened and employees could move the lighter products contained within piece by piece.
“Federal law prohibits employers from attempting to screen out or exclude applicants with disabilities,” Debra Lawrence, an EEOC regional attorney, said in the agency’s press release. “Applicants with disabilities must be provided with an equal opportunity to seek employment.”
Lori’s Gifts said the alleged incident “involved aspects of a third-party applicant tracking system that was implemented several years ago, and this minor online procedural issue was corrected immediately when we were notified,” adding that it has since taken addition steps to address its hiring process and oversight.
“Our vision is to be a trusted place for joy and support when people need it most, and that commitment extends not only to the patients, families, caregivers, and hospital partners we serve, but also to our highly valued team members” the company said. “We take our responsibilities as a workplace and as a partner very seriously.”