 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
EDD AGREEMENT EMPLOYMENT DISABILITY EEOC ADA UNITED STATES VIOLATION CALIFORNIA HEREINAFTER CHARGE DISCRIMINATION PARTIES REGARD REQUIRING AMERICA BASIS EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM PHYSICIAN APPOINTMENT EXHIBIT ACCEPTANCE PROVISIONS CIVIL ACTION ENFORCE EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT PHYSICAL IMPAIRMENTS DEPRESSION DETERMINATION |
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA AND THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
1. The parties to this Agreement are the United States of
America and the State of California Employment Development
Department. The United States of America is referred to
hereinafter as the "United States." The United States Department
of Justice is referred to hereinafter as the "Department."
2. The State of California Employment Development
Department is referred to hereinafter as the "EDD." The Charging
Party is referred to hereinafter as "Charging Party." The Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission is referred to hereinafter as
the "EEOC." Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990 (ADA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. SS 12111 et seq., is referred
to hereinafter as the "ADA."
The parties hereby agree as follows:
FACTUAL AND JURISDICTIONAL BACKGROUND
3. Charging Party filed a charge of discrimination with
the EEOC on June 24, 1993, alleging that he was discriminated
against on the basis of disability in violation of title I of the
ADA by the EDD in regard to his application for a job as a
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program Employment Program
Representative ("DVOP-EPR"). As part of the application process,
Charging Party was given a pre-employment health questionnaire
containing a checklist on which he was required to indicate
whether he had been treated for certain medical conditions. The
EDD also requested information from Charging Party's personal
physician, who advised that Charging Party had some physical
impairments and was being treated for depression but was,
nonetheless, able to perform the position of the DVOP-EPR. On
June 4, 1993, the EDD advised Charging Party that he would not be
hired because of his physical limitations.
4. On December 15, 1994, the EEOC issued its determination
that there was reasonable cause to believe that the EDD violated
title I of the ADA. The EEOC found that Charging Party is a
qualified individual who can perform the essential functions of
the DVOP-EPR position, and that he was not hired because he was
regarded as having a disability, major depression and mood
disturbance. After conciliation efforts between the EDD and the
EEOC failed, the EEOC referred Charging Party's charge to the
Department with a recommendation that the Department file suit.
5. The ADA applies to the EDD because it is a person
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
