Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, EEOC NEWS—Agency recovers $20K, files new suit against employers that allegedly took adverse actions despite medical clearance, (Sep 12, 2025)

By Pamela Wolf, J.D.

“Where there is a legitimate safety risk, employers should always look to the most recent advancements in medicine and safety technologies to determine whether the risk can be reduced or eliminated by reasonable accommodation.”

In separate developments, the EEOC announced its recovery of $20,000 from a Virginia employer that allegedly discriminated against a worker with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator, and its new lawsuit against a North Carolina employer that purportedly fired an employee with a limp despite her doctor’s note clearing her to work. Both of these employer actions violated the ADA, according to the federal agency.

Driver discriminated against following cardiac event.Pursuant to a three-year consent decree, Virginia International Terminals, LLC (VIT), will pay $20,000 and furnish other relief to settle allegations that the Norfolk, Virginia-headquartered marine terminal operator violated the ADA when it refused to allow a hustler truck driver back to work in his current position following hospitalization for a cardiac event. The hustler truck moves shipping containers around Norfolk International Terminals at a maximum speed of 20 mph. While hospitalized, the driver received an implantable cardioverter defibrillator. Following the procedure, VIT violated the ADA by refusing to allow him back to work as a hustler driver, even though he received a medical release, and instead offered lower-paying work, according to the EEOC.

No direct threat analysis. Further, VIT allegedly violated the ADA when it assumed the employee would pose a safety risk and imposed restrictions excluding him from working in certain categories of jobs. This assumption was made without conducting an individualized analysis to determine whether or not he could perform the job without posing a direct threat to himself or others, the EEOC said.

Update policies and training. In addition to monetary damages, the consent decree requires VIT to update its policies to assure compliance with the ADA, train key personnel, post an employee notice, and submit periodic compliance reports to the EEOC.

“The EEOC is pleased that VIT has committed to updating its policies to ensure the proper direct threat analysis is conducted for employees with disabilities moving forward,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Melinda C. Dugas. “Where there is a legitimate safety risk, employers should always look to the most recent advancements in medicine and safety technologies to determine whether the risk can be reduced or eliminated by reasonable accommodation.”

The EEOC filed its lawsuit in the Eastern District of Virginia, Norfolk Division; the case is No. 2:24-cv-590.

Discharged despite medical clearance.According to a new EEOC lawsuit, Piedmont Cheerwine Bottling Company violated the ADA when the North Carolina-based soft drink company with a facility in Colfax, North Carolina, required an employee to undergo a medical examination and discharged her because of a disability. The employee took medication for her disability, which had a side effect of deterioration in her hip cartilage, resulting in a limp while she walked. She worked as a store merchandiser for almost six weeks when, in March 2023, the company allegedly required her to submit to a medical examination, weeks earlier than other probationary employees because of her disability. Even though the employee met the physical requirements of the position, Cheerwine placed her on unpaid leave and told her to obtain a complete medical clearance before returning. On March 30, 2023, the employee submitted a note from her doctor clearing her to work, but Cheerwine rejected the note and terminated her employment, the lawsuit asserts.

The EEOC is seeking compensatory and punitive damages for the employee, as well as injunctive relief against the employer to prevent such unlawful conduct in the future.

The EEOC brought its lawsuit in the Middle District of North Carolina; the case is No. 1:25-cv-00821.

Companies: Virginia International Terminals, LLC; Piedmont Cheerwine Bottling Company

News: AgencyNews Discharge Discrimination DisabilityDiscrimination