Help

BI’s Article search uses Boolean search capabilities. If you are not familiar with these principles, here are some quick tips.

To search specifically for more than one word, put the search term in quotation marks. For example, “workers compensation”. This will limit your search to that combination of words.

To search for a combination of terms, use quotations and the & symbol. For example, “hurricane” & “loss”.

Login Register Subscribe

Unlikely target faces ADA suit

Reprints
Unlikely target faces ADA suit

A ratailer of wheelchairs, ramps and other such equipment is being sued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for disability discrimination for refusing to accommodate an employee's request for a leave of absence because of a knee injury, and then firing him.

On its website, New Braunfels, Texas-based The Scooter Store describes itself as “America's leading supplier of power mobility solutions, including power wheelchairs, scooters, lifts, ramps and accessories.”

James Sherman, a mobility manager in the company's Farmingdale, N.Y., store, asked for a temporary leave of absence to seek treatment for his disability, psoriatic arthritis, after he sustained the knee injury, according to the EEOC. “This reasonable accommodation would have enabled Sherman to perform the essential functions of his job,” says the federal lawsuit filed Aug. 31 in New York.

The company refused his request and fired him in April 2009, “purportedly for job abandonment, although he had presented medical documentation,” according to the EEOC.

The EEOC, which filed suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act, is seeking monetary relief, punitive damages and a permanent injunction from engaging in discriminatory practices, among other things.

Mark B. Leita, The Scooter Store's vp of external affairs and government relations, said in a statement, “The Scooter Store operates in full compliance with all state and federal laws including those that protect the rights of the disabled. However, the company will not comment further on this litigation.”