Something caught my eye yesterday as I was perusing the EEOC newsroom. The federal watchdog recently announced that it had filed a lawsuit against an employer for something called Americans with Disabilities Act interference.
What exactly is ADA interference?
The ADA prohibits an employer from coercing, intimidating, threatening, or interfering with any individual in exercising or enjoying rights that the ADA affords. That’s ADA interference.
In the recent lawsuit, the EEOC accused an employer of “required [an employee] to sign an agreement shortening the statute of limitations applicable to the ADA as a condition of retaining her employment.”
In some states, like NJ, for example, employers cannot agree with employees to reduce the time in which they can assert state-law discrimination claims.
Likewise, in the Sixth Circuit, where this new lawsuit is pending, the court found unenforceable a six-month contractual limitations period when an employee brought claims against her employer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, given each statute had longer limitations periods.
However, the EEOC is taking it a step further. Rather than just asking the court to void that provision, it’s asserting an affirmative claim for ADA interference on the theory that the contractual provision interferes with the exercise of ADA rights.
But does it, though? I searched LEXIS briefly last night and didn’t find anything on point.
Meyer On ADA Interference Claims posits that if the contractual provision purporting to shorten the statute of limitations is unenforceable, the court should void it and allow a plaintiff asserting underlying ADA violations to assert those disability claims. The plaintiff suffers no prejudice — even if the employer made the invalid agreement a condition of continued employment.
Perhaps if the employer went the next step by threatening an employee for bringing an ADA action after the expiration of the contractually shortened statute of limitations, and the plaintiff could show harm, there may be a cognizable claim.
I suspect this question will remain unanswered because the EEOC is pursuing not only an ADA interference claim but also claims of ADA discrimination and retaliation and a Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act claim. Thus, this case may be resolved with a settlement.
The takeaway here is that if your company requires employees to shorten the statute of limitations on employment claims as a condition of employment, check with your legal counsel to see if that agreement is valid.
Otherwise, you may end up in court with the EEOC.