Search
The Employer Handbook Blog
The Beer Was Flowing, But the ADA Compliance Seemed Flat
When two bartenders disclosed medical conditions, a New York brewery pulled them from the schedule, according to the EEOC. That’s not how the ADA works.
TL;DR: The EEOC recently settled an ADA lawsuit against a New York brewery, which will pay $225,000 to two former employees—one with cancer, the other with a seizure disorder. According to the complaint, both were medically cleared to work, but the company declined to schedule them and ultimately cut ties. The consent decree includes monetary relief, sweeping injunctive relief, mandatory training, and years of monitoring. For employers, this case is a reminder that ADA compliance needs more than good intentions—it requires structure, policies, and trained personnel.
In a settlement that could make HR professionals wince into their pints, the EEOC resolved—less than three months after filing—a disability discrimination lawsuit against a New York-based brewery and restaurant chain. The case revolved around two bartenders who were reportedly left off the schedule—and eventually terminated—not because they couldn’t work, but because of health conditions they disclosed to management.
Allegations in the EEOC’s Complaint
According to the EEOC:
- One bartender disclosed a cancer diagnosis, continued working without restriction, and even attended return-to-work trainings after a furlough. Despite assurances that he’d be added to the schedule, he never was—and was eventually told the company had “moved on.”
- Another bartender suffered a seizure related to a previous accident. He twice submitted medical clearance to return to work without restrictions. Still, managers refused to schedule him, citing fears about his condition—even after acknowledging his doctors had cleared him. Ultimately, he too was told he would not be reinstated.
The EEOC alleged that both terminations violated the ADA and that the company mishandled medical records, disregarded medical evidence, and lacked any structured process for handling accommodations.
Terms of the Settlement
To resolve the lawsuit, the company agreed to pay $225,000 in damages and back pay; appoint a trained ADA Coordinator; revise its accommodation policies; conduct ADA training for managers and staff; improve recordkeeping and confidentiality of medical documentation; post public notices; report future complaints to the EEOC; and submit to three years of federal monitoring.
Key Takeaways for Employers
- Don’t rely on stereotypes or assumptions about medical conditions.
ADA decisions must be based on facts—not generalizations or discomfort. Biases rooted in personal experience or fear can lead to violations. - Base return-to-work decisions on medical evidence and individualized assessment.
You’re not a doctor. If a healthcare provider clears an employee to return without restrictions, that judgment deserves deference. The ADA prohibits blanket judgments—each case must be evaluated on its own merits, using job-specific facts and proper documentation. Ignoring medical clearance or substituting fear for evidence can lead to liability. - This wasn’t just about two employees—it was about systemwide failure.
The EEOC took issue with more than just the two terminations. This case addressed how the company handled all hiring, scheduling, and ADA documentation, as well as how it trained (or failed to train) decisionmakers.
Bottom Line:
Good intentions aren’t enough when it comes to ADA compliance. Employers need clear policies, well-trained managers, and decisions rooted in evidence—not fear or bias. Otherwise, they may find themselves with a compliance hangover.