Wounded veteran wins $100K settlement for being fired by Roto Rooter

[azurnoir]

Source: Strib

In a conciliation agreement signed Friday by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and Roto-Rooter Services, the company must pay $100,000 to settle disability discrimination charges for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

“Firing a war veteran for his disabilities incurred serving his country is just plain wrong and clearly violates federal law,” said Julianne Bowman, director of the EEOC’s Chicago district. “However, we appreciate that Roto-Rooter worked cooperatively with the EEOC to resolve this charge without having to go through protracted litigation.”

The Army veteran, not identified by the EEOC, had worked for Roto-Rooter before he served multiple tours in Iraq and returned with back, leg and head injuries, Julie Schmid, the agency’s director in Minneapolis, said Tuesday.

Upon his return in 2009, the company refused to place their onetime employee in a job similar to the one he held previously. Schmid said the veteran had risen through the ranks, going from a field employee to a manager in his 10-plus years with Roto-Rooter.

In addition to paying the $100,000, the conciliation agreement requires the company to provide staff training focused on the ADA, make reasonable accommodations in the future, and to report employee requests for reasonable accommodation to the EEOC.

Read more: http://www.startribune.com/wounded-veteran-wins-100k-settlement-for-being-fired-by-roto-rooter/314980981/

[cstanleytech]

1. So why didnt they hire him back exactly?

If he was required to be able to do alot of house calls I could maybe understand but he had moved into office management right? So you would think they would have been able to rehire him at his old job without a problem.

[Major Nikon]

3. It sounds as if he asked for some sort of reasonable accommodation for his injuries

...and the employer didn't want to honor it.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

4. My boss (Marine) left for 4 years to Iraq and Afganistan.

The company kept his position open with a "temporary" manager until he came back (whole). My company believes in hiring veterans. In my experience these people have been great workers, and even better people. Unbelievable what this man's company did for him!

[tazkcmo]

2. 100k?

They should have paid through the nose! This man gave and gave and gave. Disgusting.

[Lurks Often]

5. I suspect the decision to not re-hire the veteran was made at a middle management level

and that the career of that person will never go any higher then it is now, presuming that person hasn't been let go.

Based on the impression I've gotten from similar stories, the state or federal agency responsible for seeing veterans employment rights are upheld are "enthusiastically aggressive" in dealing with the employer and the employer almost invariably in responding in a manner that suggests they are very sorry for what happened.