Royal

EEOC Releases New Guidance on Hearing Disabilities

Feb 24, 2023

By: Trevor Brice, Esq.

On Jan. 24, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released new guidance for employers on how and when to accommodate applicants and employees with hearing disabilities.

The guidance covers when an employer may ask an applicant or employee questions about a hearing condition and how it should treat voluntary disclosures of a condition, what types of reasonable accommodations applicants or employees with hearing disabilities may need, how an employer should handle safety concerns about applicants and employees with hearing disabilities, and how an employer can ensure that no employee is harassed because of a hearing disability or any other disability.


This guidance is an update to the original guidance that the EEOC released regarding accommodations for deafness and hearing disabilities in the workplace on May 7, 2014.


Questioning Employees and Applicants on Hearing Disabilities

In general, before offering an individual a job, avoid asking the applicant about hearing disabilities or any disabilities or requiring an applicant to have a medical examination before a conditional job offer. However, the limited exception to this general rule is if an applicant has an obvious impairment or has voluntarily disclosed an impairment, and the employer reasonably believes that the applicant will require an accommodation to complete the application process or to perform the job because of the condition.


If this is the case, the employer may ask if the applicant will need an accommodation and what type. However, as a best practice in the pre-offer stage, it is prudent for an employer to stick to questions about the applicant’s ability to perform the position’s essential functions, with or without reasonable accommodation, such as whether the applicant can respond quickly to instructions in a noisy, fast-paced work environment.


After making a conditional job offer, an employer may ask questions about the applicant’s health (including questions about an applicant’s disability, including deafness and hearing disabilities) and may require a medical examination as long as all applicants for the same type of job are subjected to the same requirement.


For current employees, an employer may ask disability-related questions or require an employee to have a medical examination when the employer knows about a particular employee’s medical condition, has observed performance problems, and reasonably believes that the performance problems are related to a medical condition. However, the EEOC notes that employers should take precautions in this situation, as performance problems often are unrelated to a medical condition, and the problems should be handled in accordance with the employer’s existing policies regarding performance.


Regarding hearing conditions for current employees, an employer also may ask an employee about a hearing condition when it has a reasonable belief that the employee will be unable to safely perform the essential functions of the job because of it. Further, an employer may ask an employee about their hearing to the extent necessary to support the employee’s request for accommodations, to enable the employee to participate in a voluntary wellness program, or to verify the employee’s use of sick leave related to a hearing condition if the employer requires all employees to submit a doctor’s note to justify their use of sick leave.


Possible Accommodations and Safety-related Exclusions

The EEOC suggests several reasonable accommodations that could be suggested or employed for hearing-disabled individuals. This non-exhaustive list includes a sign-language interpreter for use in interviews or during employment, assistive technology (including video relay or video remote interpreting services, hearing-aid-compatible telephone headsets, etc.), appropriate written memos and notes, note-taking assistance, work-area adjustments (moving a desk away from a noisy area, for example), time off, altering non-essential job functions, and reassignment to a vacant position.


Employers should remember that there is no magic word for requesting a reasonable accommodation; an individual simply has to tell the employer that he or she needs an adjustment or change at work because of an impairment. Employers do not have to provide reasonable accommodations if doing so would be an undue hardship, meaning that providing reasonable accommodation would result in significant difficulty or expense. Additionally, employers do not have to eliminate an essential function of a job, tolerate poor performance, or excuse violations of conduct to provide reasonable accommodations.


There is another consideration for employees with hearing disabilities. Employers may also exclude an individual with a hearing disability from a job for safety reasons when the individual poses a direct threat, which is defined as a significant risk of substantial harm to the individual or others because of a disability that cannot be eliminated or reduced through reasonable accommodations. If an employer believes there is such a direct threat, the employer should conduct an individualized assessment of the individual’s present ability to perform the essential functions of the job.


Considerations should include the duration of the risk, the nature and severity of potential harm, the likelihood that the potential harm will occur, and the imminence of the potential harm. The harm must be serious and likely to occur, not remote and speculative. Finally, the employer must consider whether any reasonable accommodations, such as the ones above, would reduce or eliminate the risk of direct threat. The EEOC provides examples of how this balancing test should work.


If employers have questions relating to this balancing test, or regarding the new guidance for hearing disabilities or disabilities and reasonable accommodations in general, it is prudent to contact legal counsel in order to avoid any potential liability.


This article was published by Healthcare News. Click here to visit their website.

Non-Compete Agreements Are in Jeopardy

26 Apr, 2024
On April 23, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) issued a final rule banning non-competition agreements for all employees except for very narrow exceptions. The FTC’s Final Rule banning all non-competition agreements is effective 120 days after its publication in the Federal Register, which is expected in the next few days.  As of the effective date, all non-competition agreements are banned, except for franchisor/franchisee relationships and for sales of a business between buyer and seller. The FTC’s Rule is retroactive, prohibiting certain non-competition agreements before the effective date of the Rule as well. Existing non-competition agreements can remain in effect as to senior executives, which are defined in the Rule as employees in “policy-making positions” making at least $151,164 annually. The FTC’s Final Rule is already being challenged through the court system and a challenge from the Chamber of Commerce will most likely follow suit. Therefore, if an employer has existing non-competition agreements, the employer may not need to rescind them just yet. Stay tuned for updates as these challenges take their due course.

ALERT: US Department of Labor Increases Salary Threshold for White Collar Overtime and Minimum Wage Exemptions

26 Apr, 2024
By: Trevor Brice, Esq. On April 23, 2024, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) announced a Final Rule updating regulations governing Executive, Administrative and Professional exemptions (“EAP exemptions”) from the minimum wage and overtime rules. This Final Rule significantly increases the salary threshold for workers to qualify for EAP exemptions. In general, to qualify for EAP exemptions, an employee must 1) be paid on a salary basis, 2) at a threshold level, and 3) primarily perform EAP duties as defined by the DOL. The Final Rule does not impose any changes on the salary basis or job duties relevant in determining EAP exemptions. After issuance of a proposed rule that received approximately 33,000 comments, the DOL in the Final Rule is increasing the salary thresholds in waves. As of July 1, 2024, the salary threshold for EAP exemptions applies to employees making $844 per week ($43,888 annually) on a salary basis. As of January 1, 2025, the threshold increases to $1,128 per week ($58,656 annually). This means that employees making under these amounts on a salary basis as of these dates are no longer exempt from overtime, as long as the other criteria for determining EAP exemptions by the DOL are met. Additionally, the rule increases the salary threshold for the “highly compensated” employee exemption. This exemption applies when an employee meets the greater salary threshold, their primary duty includes performing office or non-manual work and the employee customarily and regularly performs at least one of the duties or responsibilities defined in the EAP exemptions. The DOL also issued the increased salary threshold for the highly compensated exemption in waves. As of July 1, 2024, the salary threshold for the highly compensated employee exemption applies to employees making $132,964 annually, including at least $844 per week paid on a salary or fee basis. As of January 1, 2025, the salary threshold for the highly compensated employee exemption raises to $151, 164 annually, including at least $1,128 per week on a salary or fee basis. The DOL estimates that under the Final Rule, there will be four million workers newly entitled to overtime protection as of 2025. As with the FTC’s Final Rule passed on the same day, the DOL’s Final Rule will most likely be subject to challenge through the court system. However, for employers concerned with this new rule, it would be prudent to identify those positions below or close to the new salary thresholds, consider whether to change salaries given the new thresholds and conduct training as to who will now be exempt under the DOL’s final rule. If there is any gray area as to the DOL’s final rule, reach out to the local employment and labor counsel to determine if there is potential liability. Trevor Brice is an attorney who specializes in labor and employment-law matters at the Royal Law Firm LLP, a woman-owned, women-managed corporate law firm that is certified as a women’s business enterprise with the Massachusetts Supplier Diversity Office, the National Assoc. of Minority and Women Owned Law Firms, and the Women’s Business Enterprise National Council.
Share by: