The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a class-action lawsuit Wednesday against the Blood Bank of Hawaii, claiming the nonprofit
organization broke federal law when it fired three
workers who took more than 12 weeks off due to disability.
The EEOC said the organization’s “rigid” policies didn’t allow employees with disabilities an extended leave of absence beyond the required 12 weeks under the Family and Medical Leave Act.
The Blood Bank, founded in 1941, fired disabled workers who exhausted their leave or failed to return to the job without restrictions, a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, according to the complaint filed in U.S. District Court for Hawaii.
The lawsuit stemmed from a discrimination complaint filed by lab assistant Jane Magaoay, who was diagnosed with breast cancer in December 2014 and took time off for treatment, including chemotherapy and recovery.
The Blood Bank informed Magaoay in June 2015 that she had exceeded the
12-week maximum leave policy and would be terminated if she didn’t provide medical documentation clearing her to return to full duty. On
June 25, 2015, Magaoay’s medical provider sent documentation stating that she could return to work after September 2015, but despite the documentation, the Blood Bank fired her two days later on June 27.
“Blood Bank of Hawaii is aware that a lawsuit has been filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. We uphold all Equal Employment Opportunity principles and it is our policy to comply with federal and state laws,” said Kim-Anh Nguyen, the nonprofit’s president and CEO, in a statement. “We are committed to resolving the lawsuit and
ensuring all BBH employees are duly protected under the applicable laws.”
Kimberly Rottas, another former lab assistant mentioned in the suit, was dismissed after she exceeded the maximum leave under federal law following a series of surgeries for carpel tunnel syndrome. The third employee, commercial driver Francis Kikuchi, was forced to resign or face termination due to his request to exceed the maximum time off to treat a torn rotator cuff. He subsequently applied for a different position at the company and was rehired as a parking attendant, but at a substantially lower pay scale, the complaint said.
“They all needed additional time off for their condition. One thing that was also problematic is the company required them to be full duty to return to work, 100 percent healed, and that’s also problematic under the ADA,” said Glory Gervacio Saure, director of the EEOC’s Honolulu office, adding that the company didn’t work with the employees to provide accommodations such as light-duty assignments.
“We hope this case sends a clear message to employers that they have different obligations under the Family Medical Leave Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Employees cannot be denied their protections under the ADA,” she added.
The complaint is seeking back pay and benefits, as well as compensatory and punitive damages.
“Employers have a duty to engage in the interactive process and provide reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities,” said Anna Park, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Los Angeles District, which includes
Hawaii. “Employees should never be terminated or forced to resign simply because they need additional leave for their disabilities.”
