EEOC Releases New Guidance on Hearing Disabilities

February 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.

Can I Fire Someone for That? Common Myths That Get Employers Sued

By The Royal Law Firm • August 19, 2025
Employers regularly wonder: “Can I fire someone for that?” You might assume the answer is simple, especially in an at-will state like Massachusetts. But the reality is more complex. Missteps can land your business in court. Here’s how to avoid them and keep your company focused on growth, not litigation. Myth: “At-Will Means Any Reason Goes” At-will employment allows termination without contractual cause. Yet anti-discrimination laws and retaliation protections still apply. Even a valid reason, like poor performance, becomes risky if the employee recently complained about harassment, requested an accommodation, or reported a safety issue. Terminating soon after a complaint invites legal trouble. For example, consider firing Sarah for repeated tardiness. But what if she reported sexual harassment a few weeks earlier? Timing alone can create exposure. Document performance issues as they arise. Also, check if the employee recently returned from Family and Medical Leave (FMLA) or Paid Family and Medical Leave (PFML). A Springfield auto repair shop faced a claim after firing a worker the day after he returned from PFML to care for his newborn. The company blamed tardiness, but the timing triggered months of legal headaches. Myth: “No Documentation Needed” Some employers assume that no paperwork is necessary under at-will rules. That approach creates unnecessary risk. Without records, even lawful firings appear questionable. Weak evidence damages credibility. Imagine Tom, a low performer who never received formal feedback. If you fire him after years of positive reviews, expect scrutiny. Always provide timely written warnings and accurate performance evaluations. Keep emails, attendance records, and coaching notes. Would your records persuade a jury that the termination was justified? Myth: “We Treated Everyone Fairly” Fair treatment requires consistency. If one employee is fired and another is only warned for the same violation, questions follow. Consider two salespeople, Mike and Jose, both caught inflating sales numbers. Mike receives a warning. Jose gets fired. If Jose claims racial bias, inconsistent discipline strengthens his argument. Review prior disciplinary decisions. Can you show a clear record of equal treatment? Myth: “We Can Share the Reason Widely” Managers sometimes explain a termination too broadly, believing transparency protects the company. In reality, public disclosure creates legal risk. An employee fired for theft sued his employer after leadership announced it to the entire staff. Even truthful statements, shared excessively or with ill will, can spark defamation claims. A local example: a Chicopee retailer emailed all employees naming a worker fired for alleged cash shortages. That email became Exhibit A in court. Limit disclosure to those who truly need to know. Avoiding Retaliation Claims Retaliation is the most common EEOC claim. Firing someone after they complain about discrimination, request leave, or raise pay concerns often leads to lawsuits. Subtle actions can count too—cutting hours, assigning undesirable shifts, or excluding them from meetings. Did Lisa report a wage issue last week? If she now gets the worst shifts, her attorney will call it punishment. Train managers to pause and ask: “Does this look like payback?” In one Springfield restaurant, a server who complained about tips was fired days later for “attitude.” The MCAD viewed the timing as retaliation, and the case settled quickly. Managing the Termination Meeting Professionally How you fire someone matters. Keep the meeting short and calm. Speak plainly. Avoid debate. Bring a neutral witness, usually HR. Disable system access and collect company property immediately. For remote workers, coordinate IT to end access during the call. Have you prepared your team to stay composed when an employee gets angry or upset? A concise, professional exit reduces emotion and litigation risk. Reducing Risks Before They Occur You can prevent most legal problems with proactive steps. Train managers to document consistently. Encourage employees to raise concerns early, and respond appropriately when they do. Also, follow Massachusetts requirements: final wages and accrued vacation must be paid promptly, sometimes the same day. Missing or delaying a payment can trigger penalties. Review whether your managers apply standards uniformly. Track disciplinary trends by department or supervisor. In one Holyoke warehouse, inconsistent discipline across shifts led to multiple claims that could have been avoided with routine audits. Quick Pre-Termination Checklist Document the issue in writing. Confirm whether the employee recently exercised protected rights (complaint, FMLA, PFML, workers’ comp). Ensure similar cases were handled consistently. Complete a fair investigation and allow the employee to respond. Prepare final pay and unused vacation in compliance with Massachusetts law. Bottom Line Employee terminations happen. Legal trouble does not have to. Careful documentation, consistent actions, and thoughtful communication protect your business. Before acting, stop and ask: have we done this right? Taking these steps helps you confidently answer, “Can I fire someone for that?” That answer should never rest on guesswork. Michael P. Lewis, 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. If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288. Michael P. Lewis wrote this article which was featured in BusinessWest. Click here to visit their website.

The Royal Law Firm Attorneys Receive Finding of No Reasonable Cause at CHRO.

By The Royal Law Firm • August 18, 2025
Royal attorneys successfully obtained a dismissal at the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities. The Complainant alleged discrimination based on race, color and mental disability. Royal attorneys argued that the Complainant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination and complainant could not prove that they experienced an adverse employment action. The CHRO agreed with our argument and dismissed the case against our client due to a lack of reasonable cause.