Search the Community

Celiac.com 11/05/2024 - A new lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where a former employee is accusing her previous employer of discrimination and wrongful termination. Lauren Boyd, the plaintiff, claims that her former employer, Cigna Healthcare, violated both the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Boyd's complaint outlines a series of events she believes led to her unjust dismissal from the company, centering around her chronic health conditions and her request for reasonable accommodations. The Timeline of Employment and Health Struggles According to court documents, Lauren Boyd began her employment at Cigna Healthcare on August 16, 2021, working as a customer service advocate. During her time with the company, Boyd suffered from chronic health issues, including celiac disease, irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), and anemia. These conditions, she alleges, were well-documented and known by her employer. Complicating her medical situation, Boyd also sustained injuries from an incident at Walmart on July 29, 2022, further exacerbating her health challenges. These injuries, coupled with her chronic illnesses, led her to require more time off work for treatment and recovery. She regularly used approved unpaid leave and ADA accommodation days when she experienced health flare-ups, particularly after incidents of gluten contamination, which worsened her condition. August 2023: A Turning Point in Health and Employment The most significant period of contention in Boyd's lawsuit took place in August and September of 2023. In August, she experienced a gluten contamination episode that triggered severe symptoms, leaving her immune system compromised. As a result, she developed an upper respiratory infection and later contracted COVID-19. Despite her deteriorating health, Boyd continued to manage her condition with approved unpaid leave and ADA days between August 11 and September 6, 2023. In her complaint, Boyd states that her health issues were compounded by Cigna's refusal to approve a medical treatment she required due to low iron levels caused by her chronic conditions. Boyd was prescribed a single-infusion iron drug, but Cigna denied her request for this specific treatment, offering a five-infusion alternative instead. This suggestion, Boyd argues, was unreasonable, given her challenging work schedule of four-day, ten-hour shifts. She found it nearly impossible to arrange the frequent medical appointments required for the alternative treatment without taking even more time off from work. The Application for Short-Term Disability and Termination As Boyd’s health issues persisted, she applied for short-term disability (STD) in early September 2023. Her request for STD was made in addition to her ongoing use of FMLA leave, as she needed extended time off to recover. However, on September 13, 2023, Cigna terminated Boyd’s employment, citing attendance issues as the reason for her dismissal. Boyd contends that her termination came at an unjust time, as her FMLA/STD applications were still pending. She also highlights that Cigna’s workforce management had previously approved her unpaid time off. According to Boyd, the company failed to adequately accommodate her disability and did not engage in an interactive process to explore reasonable solutions for her health-related needs. Instead, she argues, the company retaliated against her by terminating her employment. Allegations of ADA and FMLA Violations The core of Boyd’s lawsuit is centered around two major federal laws: the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). ADA Discrimination and Retaliation: Boyd claims that Cigna violated her rights under the ADA by failing to accommodate her medical conditions and by retaliating against her for requesting accommodations. She argues that Cigna was aware of her chronic health issues and should have made efforts to engage in an interactive process, which is required by law, to determine how best to support her continued employment. By terminating her, she believes the company punished her for seeking accommodations that were necessary for her health. FMLA Interference and Retaliation: Boyd also accuses Cigna of violating her FMLA rights. She states that her termination was a direct result of her taking FMLA leave to manage her chronic illnesses. Boyd argues that Cigna interfered with her lawful use of FMLA and retaliated against her for applying for short-term disability and using unpaid leave to attend to her health. The Plaintiff’s Requests for Relief In her lawsuit, Boyd is seeking several forms of compensation and restitution from Cigna Healthcare. She has asked the court for reinstatement to her former position with a salary and benefits package comparable to what she had before her termination. Additionally, she is requesting compensatory damages in excess of $150,000 for lost wages, back pay, and front pay. Boyd is also pursuing damages for emotional distress, alleging that the wrongful termination caused her significant personal hardship. Furthermore, she seeks punitive damages as a way to hold Cigna accountable for what she views as clear violations of her rights under federal law. Finally, she is asking the court to cover her legal fees and other associated court costs. The Case Moving Forward At this stage, the case is still in its early phases. Lauren Boyd is being represented by Mary LeMieux-Fillery from the Law Offices of Eric A. Shore P.C. No attorneys have been listed for Cigna Healthcare in the initial filings. This case could have far-reaching implications for employees with chronic health conditions and disabilities, as it may shed light on how large corporations manage requests for accommodations under the ADA and leave under the FMLA. As it progresses, the court will weigh the evidence from both sides to determine whether Cigna’s actions were in violation of federal law. Conclusion This lawsuit emphasizes the ongoing challenges faced by employees with chronic health conditions in maintaining their rights under the ADA and FMLA. Lauren Boyd’s claims against Cigna Healthcare, if proven true, could highlight the importance of employers engaging in meaningful discussions about accommodations and respecting an employee’s need for medical leave. This case serves as a reminder that employees should not be penalized for seeking accommodations for their disabilities or for taking legally protected leave to manage their health. The outcome of this lawsuit may provide further clarity on the responsibilities employers have in balancing attendance policies with the rights of employees facing health challenges. Read more at: pennrecord.com

Celiac.com 08/20/2024 - Captain Mark MacKenzie, a pilot diagnosed with celiac disease, has filed a lawsuit against United Airlines for failing to provide him with gluten-free food during flights. The lawsuit, filed in Colorado federal court on August 12, claims that United Airlines has neglected to make necessary accommodations for MacKenzie, a violation of his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). This case highlights significant concerns about how airlines accommodate the dietary needs of employees with specific medical conditions. Background of the Case Captain MacKenzie, a seasoned pilot with over 35 years of experience and a clean flying record, is based out of Denver, Colorado. Due to his celiac disease, he must adhere to a strict gluten-free diet to avoid severe health complications. Celiac disease is an autoimmune disorder triggered by the ingestion of gluten, a protein found in wheat, barley, and rye. Exposure to gluten can cause various health issues, including digestive problems, malnutrition, and anemia, as outlined by the Mayo Clinic. Despite notifying United Airlines of his condition and requesting gluten-free meals, MacKenzie claims the airline has failed to provide appropriate accommodations. The lawsuit emphasizes that United Airlines not only refuses to supply him with gluten-free food but also charges him for meals he cannot consume due to his medical condition. This, according to the lawsuit, constitutes discrimination under Title I of the ADA, which requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities. Impact on Captain MacKenzie The lawsuit details the significant impact United Airlines' actions have had on Captain MacKenzie. On one occasion, during an 11-hour duty day from Denver to Roatan, Honduras, and back, United Airlines allegedly did not provide him with any gluten-free food. As a result, MacKenzie was forced to endure the long flight without eating, leading to fatigue and potential health risks. This is not an isolated incident, as the lawsuit claims that MacKenzie often has to purchase his own meals while on duty, unlike other pilots who are provided with meals they can safely eat. In 2020, MacKenzie formally notified United Airlines of his celiac disease and the challenges he faces in accessing safe food during flights and layovers. Despite this, the airline has not made the necessary adjustments, leading to the current legal action. MacKenzie is seeking a court order requiring United Airlines to provide gluten-free meals, along with damages and reimbursement for legal fees. Legal and Ethical Implications This case raises important questions about the responsibilities of employers, particularly in industries like aviation, where employees are often required to work long hours away from home. Under the ADA, employers are legally obligated to provide reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities, which in MacKenzie’s case would mean offering gluten-free meal options. The failure to do so not only violates federal law but also endangers the health and well-being of employees like MacKenzie. Furthermore, the case touches on broader ethical issues concerning equal treatment in the workplace. Charging an employee for meals they cannot safely eat due to a medical condition could be seen as an unfair burden, particularly when other employees receive their meals at no additional cost. This practice could be viewed as discriminatory and may set a concerning precedent for how other employees with dietary restrictions are treated. Why This Case Matters to Those with Celiac Disease For individuals with celiac disease, the outcome of this lawsuit could have significant implications. It underscores the challenges that people with celiac disease face in environments where access to gluten-free food is limited. If successful, MacKenzie's lawsuit could lead to stricter enforcement of ADA guidelines in the workplace, ensuring that employers take the dietary needs of employees with medical conditions seriously. Additionally, this case brings attention to the broader issue of accessibility and accommodation for people with dietary restrictions, particularly in industries like aviation, where employees may not have the ability to bring their own food or access alternative options easily. It highlights the need for greater awareness and sensitivity towards the needs of those with celiac disease and other similar conditions, advocating for a more inclusive and supportive work environment. In conclusion, Captain Mark MacKenzie’s lawsuit against United Airlines is not just a legal battle over meal accommodations; it is a critical test of how companies should treat employees with medical conditions that require special dietary considerations. The outcome of this case could set a precedent that may influence policies across various industries, ensuring that individuals with celiac disease receive the necessary support and accommodations in their workplaces. More: newsweek.com

Celiac.com 07/23/2024 - A mother from Utah County is advocating for changes after her teenage daughter, who has type one diabetes and celiac disease, experienced what the family claims was discrimination at a Provo water park. The mother alleges that her daughter was denied entry with necessary dietary food, which led to her becoming ill. The water park, however, maintains that they made efforts to accommodate the teen's needs. Incident at Splash Summit Water Park Janae Cox prepared a small cooler filled with diet-specific food and snacks for her daughter Kolbie's visit to Splash Summit Water Park. Despite the careful preparation, most of the food was not permitted inside due to the park’s stringent policy. Janae believes that this policy is not only detrimental but also potentially violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). According to Janae, Kolbie did not have sufficient food to maintain her health throughout the day, resulting in her feeling unwell. Janae and her husband, Kevin, emphasize that ensuring Kolbie has appropriate food is a continual challenge due to her medical conditions. Although the park’s regulations allow some food, they impose significant limitations. Park Policy and Family's Concerns A representative from Splash Summit explained that visitors could leave and re-enter the park with additional food but could only bring a limited amount at any one time. The Cox family argues that this arrangement is neither practical nor safe for Kolbie. Given that Kolbie is 15 and does not drive, and her parents were dropping her off, leaving the park to get more food was not a feasible option. Kevin highlighted the potential danger, noting that if Kolbie's blood sugar levels dropped while she was alone, she could have a seizure before reaching her car for more food. ADA Compliance and Legal Perspective Nate Crippes, a supervising public affairs attorney with the Disability Law Center, states that businesses in Utah are obligated to modify policies to meet ADA requirements. Crippes argues that policies should be individualized to cater to different disabilities. Splash Summit claimed they offered to store Kolbie's cooler with her food and medical supplies in the front office, but the Cox family feels this solution is still discriminatory. Kevin pointed out that this arrangement forces individuals with dietary restrictions to eat separately from other park-goers, which he believes is unfair. Seeking Resolution The Cox family asserts that their primary goal is to prevent other families from facing similar issues. Kolbie expressed her desire for a policy change, supported by her mother, who is willing to take necessary actions to achieve this. Despite having her medical supplies when she eventually entered the park, the Cox family mentioned that they had not encountered problems with the cooler on previous visits. Water Park’s Response and Future Considerations Splash Summit stated that they offer gluten-free food options within the park. When questioned about the possibility of changing their policy, the park spokesman indicated that it could be considered. The Cox family is still awaiting further discussions with the park regarding their experience. Conclusion The article highlights the challenges faced by individuals with celiac disease and diabetes in public spaces and the importance of accommodating their needs. For those with celiac disease, ensuring access to safe food options is crucial to avoid health complications. The Cox family’s story underscores the necessity for businesses to implement flexible, inclusive policies that respect and address the unique requirements of all patrons. Their advocacy serves as a reminder of the ongoing need for awareness and adjustments to ensure equal access and treatment for people with disabilities. Read more at: kmyu.tv

Celiac.com 06/15/2024 - In recent years, there has been a notable increase in the number of online job applications that include questions about disability status. At least 50% of these applications now inquire whether applicants have a disability, with celiac disease often listed as a potential disability. This trend raises important questions about the nature of celiac disease and whether it should be classified as a disability on a job application. While recognizing the challenges faced by individuals with celiac disease, it is crucial to critically examine whether it fits the standard definition of a disability, especially considering that adherence to a gluten-free diet typically leads to a symptom-free state. Understanding Celiac Disease Celiac disease is an autoimmune disorder where the ingestion of gluten leads to damage in the small intestine. Gluten is a protein found in wheat, barley, and rye. For individuals with celiac disease, even a small amount of gluten can trigger an immune response that damages the villi of the small intestine, leading to nutrient malabsorption and various symptoms, such as gastrointestinal issues, fatigue, and anemia. The Gluten-Free Diet as a Solution The primary treatment for celiac disease is a strict, lifelong gluten-free diet. Adherence to this diet usually results in the healing of the intestinal lining and the resolution of symptoms. Most individuals with celiac disease who follow a gluten-free diet for several months to a couple of years can achieve a symptom-free state and lead normal, healthy lives—without any issues that would interfere with work—especially if the job is remote work (yes, even remote jobs where you would work from home are now asking this question). Celiac Disease and Disability: Definitions and Implications The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) defines a disability as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. This definition includes conditions that are episodic or in remission if they would substantially limit a major life activity when active. Understanding how the ADA applies to work and jobs is crucial for both employers and employees, as it ensures that individuals with disabilities have equal access to employment opportunities and workplace accommodations. The ADA prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities in all aspects of employment, including hiring, firing, promotions, job assignments, training, benefits, and any other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. It applies to private employers with 15 or more employees, as well as to state and local government employers, employment agencies, and labor unions. Under the ADA, employers are required to provide reasonable accommodations to qualified employees with disabilities, unless doing so would cause undue hardship to the business. Reasonable accommodations are modifications or adjustments to a job or work environment that enable a person with a disability to perform essential job functions. Examples of reasonable accommodations include: Making existing facilities accessible Restructuring a job Modifying work schedules Acquiring or modifying equipment Providing qualified readers or interpreters For individuals with celiac disease, reasonable accommodations might include ensuring access to gluten-free food options in the workplace, providing flexibility in break times to allow for safe eating practices, or allowing remote work if gluten contamination in the workplace is a concern. The Case for Skepticism Symptom-Free State and Normal Functioning The primary argument against categorizing celiac disease as a standard disability is the fact that individuals with the condition can achieve a symptom-free state through dietary management. Once on a gluten-free diet, the majority of people with celiac disease do not experience limitations in their daily activities or work performance. They are not substantially limited in any major life activity, which is a key criterion for defining a disability under the ADA. If someone with celiac disease can bring their own food to work, of if they can work from home and fully control their food, it's very unlikely that a worker would ever be considered disabled to the point where it would affect their ability to perform their job. Comparisons with Other Disabilities Comparing celiac disease with other disabilities that inherently limit life activities can be illuminating. For example, conditions like multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, or severe mental health disorders often have persistent symptoms and functional impairments despite treatment. In contrast, celiac disease, when managed with diet, does not typically present ongoing challenges or impairments that affect daily functioning. The Impact of Labeling Celiac Disease as a Disability Potential Benefits There are potential benefits to recognizing celiac disease as a disability. It can ensure that individuals with the condition receive necessary accommodations, such as access to gluten-free food options at work or understanding from employers regarding their dietary needs. It can also provide legal protections against discrimination. Potential Drawbacks However, labeling celiac disease as a disability can also have drawbacks. It may lead to unnecessary stigmatization or misconceptions about the capabilities of individuals with the condition. Employers might mistakenly believe that people with celiac disease require significant accommodations or are frequently ill, which is not the case for those adhering to a gluten-free diet. This could inadvertently affect hiring decisions and job opportunities. Navigating Job Applications Transparency and Honesty When faced with the question of disability status on job applications, individuals with celiac disease must navigate a complex landscape. Honesty is paramount, but so is understanding the implications of disclosing a condition that, when managed, does not cause substantial limitations. If someone with celiac disease has been symptom-free for a considerable period due to a strict gluten-free diet, they may not feel the need to disclose their condition as a disability. Caption: An actual job application—how would you answer? Legal Considerations Legally, it can be permissible for individuals with well-managed celiac disease to answer "no" to the disability question if their condition does not currently limit any major life activities. The ADA defines a disability based on the presence of substantial limitations, and if those limitations are effectively mitigated through diet, an individual may reasonably determine that they do not meet this criteria. However, it's important to note that the ADA also considers conditions that are episodic or in remission, meaning that if the person were to consume gluten, their major life activities would be substantially limited. Thus, while saying "no" can be legally justifiable, it is crucial for individuals to consider their specific circumstances and the potential need for future accommodations when making this decision. Consulting with a legal or HR expert can provide additional clarity and ensure compliance with ADA guidelines. Rethinking Disability Categories Criteria for Disability The inclusion of celiac disease in disability categories invites a broader discussion about what constitutes a disability. The criteria should focus on the extent to which a condition limits major life activities despite management or treatment. If a condition can be effectively managed to the point where it no longer imposes substantial limitations, its classification as a disability should be reconsidered. Individualized Assessments Rather than blanket classifications, individualized assessments might offer a more nuanced approach. Evaluating the specific circumstances and needs of each person with celiac disease can ensure that those who genuinely require accommodations receive them, while those who do not are not unnecessarily labeled. Conclusion The increasing inclusion of celiac disease in disability categories on job applications warrants critical examination. While it is crucial to protect the rights and accommodate the needs of individuals with celiac disease, it is equally important to recognize that effective dietary management typically leads to a symptom-free and fully functional state. Classifying celiac disease as a disability for all individuals may not reflect the reality of those who have successfully managed their condition through a gluten-free diet. A more nuanced, individualized approach to disability classification and disclosure may better serve the interests of both job applicants and employers, fostering a more accurate understanding of celiac disease in the workplace.

Celiac.com 03/29/2023 - We get a lot of questions from people about celiac disease, and celiac-related issues. One question we've seen a lot lately is: Is celiac disease is a disability? The short answer is yes. Celiac disease is considered a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), but the longer answer is more complex. Here's the rundown. ADA Became Law in 1990 The Americans with Disabilities Act is a law that aims to prevent discrimination against people with disabilities. The act was passed in 1990 and has since been expanded to cover a variety of disabilities, including those that are not immediately apparent to others. The ADA contains four main provisions that make it easier for people with disabilities to participate fully in society: The ADA prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of disability. The ADA prohibits discrimination against those with disabilities at the local or state government level. The ADA prohibits discrimination based on disability from businesses that offer goods, services, facilities, or accommodations to the public. The ADA requires telecommunications companies to take steps to make sure they can offer "functionally equivalent services" to individuals with disabilities. ADA Expanded in 2008 In 2008, the ADA was expanded to include "major life activities" such as eating, which means that individuals with celiac disease and gluten sensitivity are covered under the ADA. However, it is not always clear what accommodations are required under the law. The law requires public places and companies to provide access to people with disabilities, and prohibits employment discrimination based on disability. The ADA covers people with celiac disease and gluten sensitivity, and in theory, guarantees access to safe food. For example, in situations where safe food is not readily available, such as in jail or on a cruise, the ADA should require that accommodations be made for individuals with celiac disease or gluten sensitivity. Additionally, if an employer requires employees to attend a lunch meeting where the only food available is provided by the employer, the employer may be required to provide a gluten-free meal. In theory, public schools should also have to offer gluten-free lunches to students with celiac disease, although this is clearly not yet happening in most public schools. Many colleges now offer gluten-free menu options, and hopefully this will also spread to public elementary and high schools as well. Celiacs Often Have to Fight for Protection However, the reality is that people with celiac disease may still have to fight for accommodations, like gluten-free food, even if they are covered by the ADA. People with celiac disease or gluten sensitivity may need to advocate for themselves to receive accommodations under the ADA. They may need to provide extensive guidance to those preparing their food and potentially fight to force the institution in question to meet their needs. The ADA can help people with celiac disease or gluten sensitivity in certain situations, like requiring safe food in an emergency shelter or in prison, and allowing people to bring their own gluten-free food to places where safe food won't be available. However, it cannot force a private restaurant to provide gluten-free food. While it may not always be clear what accommodations are required under the law, it is important for individuals with disabilities to do their best to understand their rights, and to advocate for themselves as necessary. Read more at verywellhealth.com

Celiac.com 09/02/2020 - In a recent blog post, the Toronto law firm, Himelfarb Proszanski LLP, noted that people with any of a number of long-term disabilities are routinely denied coverage for their conditions by medical insurance. Chronic mental and psychological disorders, which lack clear visible evidence, are the most commonly denied conditions. These include mental and psychological conditions such as depression, bipolar disorder, paranoid schizophrenia, chronic anxiety and sleep disorders. Generally speaking, the post notes, physical disabilities, like serious back and spinal problems, paralysis, or blindness, are easier to spot and see fewer denials. However, the list of physical conditions that see frequent insurance denials of coverage includes celiac disease, fibromyalgia and chronic arthritis, among others. The post notes that such conditions are often hard to diagnose, and sometimes difficult to prove in court. To qualify for long-term disability insurance benefits, the post says, people with serious depression, bipolar disorder and schizophrenia often need diagnoses from more than two physicians. People denied coverage for these hard-to-diagnose long-term disability conditions face can face an uphill legal battle. “Many insurance and legal experts say the situation is equivalent to discrimination against people who suffer from mental illness or ‘invisible’ disease or ailment,” the firm noted. Even people who have qualified, and are currently receiving benefits are subject to review and sudden denial, said the firm's post. Have you or a loved one faced an uphill insurance battle because of celiac disease or any of the conditions listed above? Be sure to share your story in the comments section below. Read more at the LATimes.com

Celiac.com 01/11/2016 - Is celiac disease a disability under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act? The Department of Justice says not necessarily. On the heels of a federal lawsuit that claiming that restaurants are violating federal disability laws by charging more for gluten-free food than for non-gluten-free counter parts, a Department of Justice spokesperson has stated that a 2012 civil rights settlement on behalf of Lesley University students with celiac disease does not make the condition a disability in all cases. DOJ public affairs specialist, Patrick Rodenbush, said settlement at Leslie University did not set a legal precedent, because the "…settlement enforces the rights of students whose food allergies were disabilities, [but] it doesn't necessarily make celiac disease a disability in all cases." This is relevant to a case in California, where federal judge recently denied a motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit alleging P.F. Chang's violates the Americans with Disabilities Act because it charges more for gluten-free items. In the P.F. Chang's case, Judge Ronald Whyte denied P.F. Chang's motion to dismiss because, he wrote, that, although the court had not found specific information proving that celiac disease constituted a disability under the ADA, the "plaintiff has pled sufficient facts to support her claim that she has a disability that impacts a major life activity." Whyte noted "on a more complete factual record, the court might reach a different conclusion." He also stated that it may be difficult, or impossible for Phillips to prove her claims. "The ultimate question is whether P.F. Chang's, in providing gluten-free meals, is providing different products or whether the price differential with regular meals is a pretext for discrimination against those with celiac disease," Whyte wrote. At stake is whether or not food vendors, such as P.F. Chang's can charge higher prices for gluten-free foods than they do for non-gluten-free items. The results of this case are being watched closely by celiacs and by restaurant companies, because a ruling that establishes that people with celiac disease are covered under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act could conceivably have a serious impact on how the restaurant industry approaches gluten-free food. Stay tuned for new developments. Source: legalnewsline.com

08/01/2018 - A federal appeals court has ordered a new trial for a terminated worker who sued a staffing company for allegedly violating the Americans with Disabilities Act by not accommodating her celiac disease. Laurie Peterson suffers from celiac disease, and worked as a staffing supervisor for Troy, Michigan-based Kelly Services Inc. until her termination in January 2014 according to court papers filed in Laurie Peterson v. Kelly Services Inc. Peterson had originally sued Kelly in U.S. District Court in Spokane, Washington, alleging failure to accommodate, discrimination and retaliation under the ADA. The original court issued a partial summary judgment granting Kelly’s motion on Ms. Peterson’s claims that the company had failed to accommodate her celiac disease and had fired her in retaliation for protected activity, but allowed related charges in the case to proceed. A jury later found that Kelly had not retaliated against Ms. Peterson. A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued a unanimous reversal of the district court’s original ruling. The panel wrote that the district court had “failed to construe the facts in the light most favorable to Peterson as the non-moving party as required on summary judgment.” The case originally arose out of Peterson’s work as interim district manager in fall 2013 while Kelly Services was looking for a new district manager. According to the complaint in the case, when the new district manager learned Ms. Peterson had celiac disease, he began treating her differently than other employees, including changing her work schedule. The change in work schedule allegedly caused Ms. Peterson stress and anxiety, which aggravated her celiac-related condition. Ms. Peterson sought to return to her previous 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. shift. According to the complaint, the district manager told Ms. Peterson to take unpaid leave under the Family Medical Leave Act instead of seeking an accommodation from the company. Peterson and the supervisor were later fired. In reversing the lower court and remanding for trial the claims decided on summary judgment, the court found that the district supervisor’s statement “is direct evidence of retaliatory intent.” The ruling added that the supervisor’s declaration “also raises a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Kelly Services engaged in the interactive process in good faith.” Ms. Peterson’s battle against Kelly Services, Inc., has important implications for how companies treat people with celiac disease under the ADA. To find out how the retrial turns out, keep an eye on Celiac.com Source: businessinsurance.com

Celiac.com 11/19/2013 - There's an interesting take on the precedent-setting ruling issued early in 2013 by the U.S. Justice Department, which found that celiac disease and other serious food allergies and sensitivities can be considered disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The ruling arises from a settlement between the Justice Department and Lesley University in Cambridge, Massachusetts that came after Justice investigated the university in response to a student complaint that the school’s mandatory meal plan did not provide sufficient gluten-free food alternatives, and that the school did not accommodate the needs of those on gluten-free diets by excusing their participation in the meal plan or providing a reasonable alternative. The ruling has led a number of colleges and universities with student meal programs to make efforts to offer suitable options for students with celiac disease and other serious food allergies. However, Janet Raasch, points out in a blog entry on lawyers.com that the ruling applies more broadly to schools and restaurants at large. Raasch says that "…schools, restaurants and other places that serve food can be exposed to legal challenges if they fail to honor requests for accommodations by people with celiac disease." It's important to remember that Ms. Raasch is not a lawyer. So, while she has an interesting take, and it remains to be seen if gluten-free options become more numerous partly out of a push for restaurants and other food service establishments to follow in the footsteps of colleges and universities with student meal programs. What do you think will be the impact if schools, restaurants and food purveyors treat celiac and other food allergies as an ADA disability? Will it mean more gluten-free options? Better standards? Share your comments below. Source: blogs.lawyers.com Post by Janet Raasch

Celiac.com 01/04/2016 - Does P.F. Chang's Asian Bistro discriminate against people with celiac disease by charging more for gluten-free dishes than for their non-gluten-free counterparts? A complaint filed in federal court says it does, and a ruling by a federal judge means that the lawsuit against P.F. Chang's over its gluten-free menu won't be dismissed just yet. That means a class action lawsuit against P.F. Chang's for allegedly charging more for gluten-free menu items can continue. Judge Ronald Whyte's Nov. 23 order denied the company's motion to dismiss plaintiff Anna Marie Phillips' first amended complaint. "Neither party has cited, and the court has not found, any case specifically discussing whether celiac disease constitutes a disability under the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) or Unruh Act," Whyte wrote in his 13-page ruling. "However, accepting the additional detail in the FAC (first amended complaint) about the consequences of ingesting or being exposed to gluten, which plaintiff must guard against, plaintiff has pled sufficient facts to support her claim that she has a disability that impacts a major life activity. "The court notes that on a more complete factual record, the court might reach a different conclusion." Phillips sued P.F. Chang's in a California state court last December. Chang's then successfully moved the case to U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Basically, the outcome of the move to dismiss hinges on whether or not celiac disease constitutes a disability under the state's Unruh Act. In his order last month, Whyte concluded that Phillips, in her new complaint, pled sufficient facts to claim that the immune reaction to eating gluten meets the definition of a "medical condition" under the state's Unruh Act for people with celiac disease. The law specifically outlaws discrimination based on sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, age, disability, medical condition, marital status or sexual orientation. In her amended complaint, Phillips also claims that celiac disease is an "inheritable and hence genetic characteristic." P.F. Chang's argues that the plaintiff must allege that she actually inherited characteristics known to cause disease under the second prong of the "medical condition" definition. At stake in the lawsuit is whether or not P.F. Chang's, and, by extension, other restaurants can charge more money for gluten-free food than they do for similar, non-gluten-free menu items. The restaurant chain first moved to dismiss Phillips' class action in February, claiming her celiac disease does not make her a disabled person under the ADA. It urged Whyte to dismiss the lawsuit before the entire restaurant industry was impacted. Whyte heard oral arguments in May. According to the case's docket, the motion to dismiss was "tentatively granted" at the hearing, with a final ruling to be issued by the court later. In August, the judge granted P.F. Chang's motion to dismiss Phillips' original complaint. Whyte ruled that the plaintiff failed to allege facts showing that the restaurant chain discriminated against her and other guests with celiac disease or a gluten allergy/intolerance, by charging $1 more for some gluten-free menu items compared to non-gluten-free versions of menu items with a similar name but prepared and handled much differently. However, Whyte granted Phillips a leave to amend. In doing so, the judge expressed his "reservations" about whether the plaintiff could ever state a viable claim under her discrimination theory. Phillips filed her first amended complaint soon after. In September, P.F. Chang's filed a motion to dismiss the new complaint, arguing that it asserts the same disability-discrimination claims and offers "few additional facts" and "none that warrant a different result." But a detailed list of Phillips' symptoms and reactions when ingesting gluten forced the judge to change his mind. As to whether or not the lawsuit will gain traction, stay tuned.