EEOC Vs. Florida Commercial Security Services Corp.
ADT
Tayeb Hyderally is very familiar with employment laws which are intended to protect employees from any type of unfair treatment in the workplace. Mr. Hyderally has many years of successful courtroom litigation on behalf of those whose rights have been violated. Although retaliation and discrimination go hand in hand, they are two separate offenses and require a certain level of legal expertise to be handled properly. Individuals have the protected right to report any act that they feel is a form of discrimination in the workplace without having to fear retaliation. In those instances where retaliation occurs, employment lawyers like Ty Hyderally are equipped to argue the case in court and fight for the employee’s rights. There is no room in the workplace for disability discrimination and an employer must make any reasonable accommodations so that a person with a disability who is capable can perform their job. In this case, the employee was qualified and capable but when he filed a discrimination complaint, he was retaliated against.
Florida Construction Security Services Sued by the EEOC for Disability Discrimination and Retaliation
Florida Construction Security Services is a security firm which offers full service asset protection. Alberto Tarud-saieh applied to work with the security company as a security officer. He was first hired in a driving position in which he drove around a community association monitoring and providing security from a vehicle. After his first day on the job, the president of the association called the company and complained that it was a “joke for sending them a one-arm security officer.” Even though Tarud-saieh did not need his prosthetic arm to perform the job, and the company never requested that he wear it they removed him from the position immediately. After he filed a disability discrimination charge, the company did not assign him to any other positions according to the EEOC.
Conciliation Efforts
The EEOC attempted conciliation efforts and tried to reach a pre-litigation settlement with the company. After these proceedings failed, the EEOC filed a disability discrimination suit as well as a retaliation suit in the IS District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The EEOC requested back pay, compensatory damages and punitive damages for Tarud-saieh. They also pushed for the company to develop preventive measures and policies which would prevent any other types of discriminatory actions from occurring.
ADA Requirements
The ADA sets forth requirements for hiring individuals with disabilities. Employers must only judge an individual on the basis of how well they can perform the essential responsibilities of the job, not on any appearances or stereotypes. Having a customer complain about the appearance of an employee based on his disability is not considered a legitimate reason to terminate the employee. There was no evidence that Mr. Tarud-saieh could not perform his job responsibilities whether he was wearing his prosthetic arm or not. The EEOC claims that he was discriminated against based on a disability and then he was unlawfully terminated suddenly after one day at work based upon his disability.
Retaliation Cases
This case is a classic retaliation case since Mr. Tarud-saieh was relieved of his duties and remained unassigned to other responsibilities after he filed a discrimination suit. Employers are prohibited from taking any type of retaliatory actions against an employee who reports any act of discrimination in the workplace. Strict employment laws are in place to protect employees who demonstrate any form of opposition to discriminatory practices in the workplace. Employers cannot terminate, demote or take any type of retaliatory actions against an employee who reports workplace discrimination or files a formal complaint about discrimination in the workplace.
Florida Construction Security Services Sued by the EEOC for Disability Discrimination and Retaliation
Florida Construction Security Services is a security firm which offers full service asset protection. Alberto Tarud-saieh applied to work with the security company as a security officer. He was first hired in a driving position in which he drove around a community association monitoring and providing security from a vehicle. After his first day on the job, the president of the association called the company and complained that it was a “joke for sending them a one-arm security officer.” Even though Tarud-saieh did not need his prosthetic arm to perform the job, and the company never requested that he wear it they removed him from the position immediately. After he filed a disability discrimination charge, the company did not assign him to any other positions according to the EEOC.
Conciliation Efforts
The EEOC attempted conciliation efforts and tried to reach a pre-litigation settlement with the company. After these proceedings failed, the EEOC filed a disability discrimination suit as well as a retaliation suit in the IS District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The EEOC requested back pay, compensatory damages and punitive damages for Tarud-saieh. They also pushed for the company to develop preventive measures and policies which would prevent any other types of discriminatory actions from occurring.
ADA Requirements
The ADA sets forth requirements for hiring individuals with disabilities. Employers must only judge an individual on the basis of how well they can perform the essential responsibilities of the job, not on any appearances or stereotypes. Having a customer complain about the appearance of an employee based on his disability is not considered a legitimate reason to terminate the employee. There was no evidence that Mr. Tarud-saieh could not perform his job responsibilities whether he was wearing his prosthetic arm or not. The EEOC claims that he was discriminated against based on a disability and then he was unlawfully terminated suddenly after one day at work based upon his disability.
Retaliation Cases
This case is a classic retaliation case since Mr. Tarud-saieh was relieved of his duties and remained unassigned to other responsibilities after he filed a discrimination suit. Employers are prohibited from taking any type of retaliatory actions against an employee who reports any act of discrimination in the workplace. Strict employment laws are in place to protect employees who demonstrate any form of opposition to discriminatory practices in the workplace. Employers cannot terminate, demote or take any type of retaliatory actions against an employee who reports workplace discrimination or files a formal complaint about discrimination in the workplace.