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 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 09/13/2017 - Facing charges that it forced a young boy with gluten-intolerance to eat outside in the rain, the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation has issued an official statement in which it denies violating any laws or mistreating an 11-year old Maryland boy with a food allergy, while he was eating in Shields Tavern with a school group in May, according to a filing Monday in U.S. District Court. The lawsuit, filed by a Maryland family, alleges that Colonial Williamsburg violated federal and state law by discriminating against the boy, referred to as J.D. in court documents, by not allowing him to eat his food inside Shields Tavern May 11. The suit further contends that the boy was forced to eat alone in the rain. Colonial Williamsburg Foundation claims that staff informed the boy's school no outside food is permitted in its taverns. They also claim that Shields Tavern offered to accommodate J.D. by preparing a gluten-free meal for him, and that the school had in fact ordered gluten-free meals ahead of J.D.'s visit to Colonial Williamsburg. The foundation contends that the incident occurred only after J.D.'s father refused the tavern's gluten-free offering, and chose to eat his own food, in violation of Williamsburg's rules. The foundation also stated that they never asked the family to leave the tavern, but that they chose to leave and eat outside. The Foundation claims that the tavern's head chef is trained to prepare gluten-free meals, that Shields Tavern routinely prepares gluten-free meals for guests, and that they did so for the J.D. In a statement, the family's attorney, Mary Vargas, said Colonial Williamsburg's response to the lawsuit falls short. "Colonial Williamsburg's Answer does not accurately portray the facts or the manner in which this child and his family were treated before, during, or after his exclusion from Shields Tavern and is internally inconsistent in multiple respects," Vargas said in an emailed statement. "Ultimately, a jury will have to decide whether sending a child out in the rain because of his disability is what the Americans with Disabilities Act requires." So, did Colonial Williamsburg wrongly force a gluten-free kid to eat outside in the rain? Or did they accommodate the child with gluten-free food only to be rebuffed by the boys father? Sounds like we'll need to wait for more news from the lawsuit before we have a good answer to that question. Stay tuned. Read more at: vagazette.com