Tag Archives: reasonable accommodation

Will Nebraska women be forced to pick between work comp or discrimination laws for work-related miscarriages?

Posted on by

Recent Nebraska case law may force pregnant workers to chose between filing a discrimination or workers’ compensation case for pregnancy-related injuries.

Paid maternity leave is nearly a luxury in the United States – particularly for lower-wage hourly workers in the service industry. But pregnant workers in Nebraska have some protections in the way of anti-discrimination laws and workers’ compensation laws.

But unfortunately, pregnant workers in Nebraska may have to pick between discrimination and workers’ compensation laws if work causes a miscarriage or complicates a pregnancy.

Filing a pregnancy discrimination claim if the discrimination causes a physical injury? Maybe not.

It would stand to reason that if an employer fails to accommodate a pregnant worker by giving them help with manual labor and that manual labor leads to a miscarriage or other complications, you would have both a pregnancy discrimination case and a workers’ compensation case.

The Nebraska Supreme Court might beg to differ.

In Dutcher v. Nebraska Department of Correctional Services, the Nebraska Supreme Court held that so-called exclusive remedy provision of the Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Case prevented an employee from suing their employer under the Nebraska Fair Employment Practices Act for being fired due to a disability that was caused by her work injury.

Dutcher is a bad employee’s case and it will get a full analysis soon. But one implication of Dutcher would be that an employer could argue that an employee is impermissibly trying to “double-dip” if they alleged pregnancy discrimination for a failure to accommodate that also caused a work injury where they collected workers’ compensation benefits.

Arguably, pregnancy is distinguishable in that pregnancy would not be a condition that be covered by workers’ compensation in Nebraska. Pregnancy isn’t caused by a work injury. Would an employer be forced to cover a pregnancy under workers’ compensation for a pregnancy from consensual sex on the job? Would an employee who was raped on the job be forced into the exclusive remedy of workers’ compensation if they were impregnated? The answer should be no and no. But I think Dutcher could quite possibly limit the protections of pregnant workers who get injured on the job when an employer fails to accommodate their pregnancy.

Pregnancy discrimination in Nebraska

Nebraska changed the Nebraska Fair Employment Practices Act to ensure employers of 15 or more to provided reasonable accommodations for pregnancy and pregnancy-related medical conditions. I would argue Nebraska law could provide more of a duty for covered employers to accommodate an employee with a disability. Nebraska law spells out specific reasonable accommodations for pregnant workers such as breaks, help with manual labor and temporary light duty jobs that aren’t generally required for disabled employees.

Damages under the Nebraska Fair Employment Practices Act can include back pay, front pay, attorney fees and compensatory damages. In plain language compensatory damages means pay for pain and suffering and emotional distress. Those pain and suffering damages aren’t available under workers’ compensation.

But what about employee’s working for employers with fewer than 15 employees? If they are employed in Omaha or Lincoln they can file a charge with a municipal human rights agency for failure to accommodate a pregnancy.  

If the failure to accommodate pregnancy causes a miscarriage or otherwise forces a pregnant worker to seek medical treatment, they can also file a workers’ compensation claim in Nebraska.

Workers’ compensation for pregnancy in Nebraska

I think miscarriages or other complications to pregnancy would be covered by workers’ compensation in Nebraska. I think this for two reasons: 1) Nebraska workers compensation covers work injuries from overuse or repetitive use and 2) Nebraska has contributing factor causation which means work can combine with other factors to cause an injury and still be covered by workers’ compensation.

All employees are covered by workers’ compensation in Nebraska from the first day of their employment. Workers’ compensation also covers all medical bills from a work injury. So even if an employee isn’t covered by the Nebraska Fair Employment Practices Act,  isn’t covered by  the Family Medical Leave Act and/or doesn’t have health insurance, workers’ compensation should cover any medical expenses related to a physical injury from an employer unreasonably forcing a pregnant worker to work.

The offices of Rehm, Bennett, Moore & Rehm, which also sponsors the Trucker Lawyers website, are located in Lincoln and Omaha, Nebraska. Five attorneys represent plaintiffs in workers’ compensation, personal injury, employment and Social Security disability claims. The firm’s lawyers have combined experience of more than 95 years of practice representing injured workers and truck drivers in Nebraska, Iowa and other states with Nebraska and Iowa jurisdiction. The lawyers regularly represent hurt truck drivers and often sue Crete Carrier Corporation, K&B Trucking, Werner Enterprises, UPS, and FedEx. Lawyers in the firm hold licenses in Nebraska and Iowa and are active in groups such as the College of Workers’ Compensation Lawyers, Workers' Injury Law & Advocacy Group (WILG), American Association for Justice (AAJ), the Nebraska Association of Trial Attorneys (NATA), and the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA). We have the knowledge, experience and toughness to win rightful compensation for people who have been injured or mistreated.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , .

Anti-masking social media hoaxes undermine ADA

Posted on by

Opponents of masking requirements cite the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as a reason why masking requirements are illegal. One store in Lincoln is publicizing their no mask policy on these grounds.

Legal falsehoods about mask requirements were effectively debunked by an article in USA Today. I believe, for reasons that I will explain below, that these falsehoods about the ADA undermine the protections provided by the law. But this social media legal hoax contains a few kernels of truth about the ADA.

The first kernel of truth is that requiring protective gear can violate the ADA in some circumstances. The second kernel of truth is that one-size-fits-all policies in the workplace can violate the ADA.

But looking closer at these kernels of truth can help in understanding why the overall story is false.

Protective gear and the ADA

The hoax about masks and the ADA centers in the idea that not wearing a mask is a reasonable accommodation for a disability. But in order for requiring protective gear to violate the ADA it would have to interfere with the ability to perform an essential function of your job. In an employment law context, whether gear is excessive depends on the job.

In April a federal court in Nebraska ruled requiring an evidence technician to wear full protective gear at all times to protect against mold allergies could violate the ADA. Compare that set of facts with being required to wear a surgical mask for a 15-minute visit to the grocery store. Wearing full PPE gear for eight hours is completely different than wearing a cloth surgical mask for 15 minutes.

Other courts have allowed more uncomfortable gear requirements. At the end of July, the relatively worker-friendly 6th Circuit Court of Appeals found a trucking company could require an employee to wear a CPAP mask even if there was medical evidence the mask was ineffective without violating the ADA. Again, wearing a cloth mask for 15-20 minutes is a lot less cumbersome than sleeping tied to a CPAP machine.

The ADA and blanket requirements

The ADA tends to frown on one-size-fits-all policies. I think that’s part of the reason why employers have difficulty complying with the law. The ADA requires that reasonable accommodations be made for disabled people. But a reasonable accommodation doesn’t mean a preferred accommodation. I will assume for the sake of argument that some people would be unable to wear a surgical mask because of some disability. But in the context of a retail store, a customer who couldn’t wear a mask could request delivery or curb side pick-up.

The danger of the ADA anti-mask hoax

Big business has been crying out for exemptions from legal liability since the beginning of the pandemic. This gross misconception that business will be subjected to lawsuits for requiring masks could fuel support for limiting liability related to COVID-19. While liability limitations have been mostly supported by Republicans, the fact that mostly conservative leaning anti-maskers are invoking the ADA may lead centrist Democrats to support liability limitations about the ADA.

Social media hoaxes and tort reform

Back in 2015, I wrote about how a social media hoax involving the “Rome Statute” and Facebook. The point of the post was that social media hoaxes about the law generally serve to weaken the rights of consumers and employees. The ADA anti-masking hoax is similar. It is premised on the false assumption that business is at risk for excessive litigation. Even before the COVID pandemic, business interests were screaming out to weaken the ADA. Once that belief becomes widespread, lobbyists and law makers move to undercut legal remedies for those with legitimate grievances.

Empathy for the masked

I know first-hand that wearing a mask for extended length of time is uncomfortable. I know for employees working in jobs like nursing, manufacturing, food processing and warehousing that masks are even more uncomfortable. This post is not intended to downplay your discomfort. This post is intended to explain a hoax based incorrect assumptions about an important civil rights law.

The offices of Rehm, Bennett, Moore & Rehm, which also sponsors the Trucker Lawyers website, are located in Lincoln and Omaha, Nebraska. Five attorneys represent plaintiffs in workers’ compensation, personal injury, employment and Social Security disability claims. The firm’s lawyers have combined experience of more than 95 years of practice representing injured workers and truck drivers in Nebraska, Iowa and other states with Nebraska and Iowa jurisdiction. The lawyers regularly represent hurt truck drivers and often sue Crete Carrier Corporation, K&B Trucking, Werner Enterprises, UPS, and FedEx. Lawyers in the firm hold licenses in Nebraska and Iowa and are active in groups such as the College of Workers’ Compensation Lawyers, Workers' Injury Law & Advocacy Group (WILG), American Association for Justice (AAJ), the Nebraska Association of Trial Attorneys (NATA), and the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA). We have the knowledge, experience and toughness to win rightful compensation for people who have been injured or mistreated.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , .