• Contact
  • 888-54-FIRST
  • Client Login
    • Client Portal
    • Online Store
Search
First Healthcare Compliance
  • Solutions
    • Compliance Management Software
    • Online Compliance Courses
    • Compliance Management Suite
  • Plans
  • Resources
    • Blog
    • Virtual Education Hub
    • 1st Talk Compliance Podcast
    • Connect Magazine
    • Compliance Posters
    • Healthcare Compliance Books
    • Newsletter Signup
  • News & Events
    • Press Releases
  • Our Team
  • Request Demo
  • Menu Menu
  • Shopping Cart Shopping Cart
    0Shopping Cart

Blog

Discrimination

EEOC Roundup: Cases Against Healthcare Providers

April 5, 2018/in Blog, Human Resources

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has been scrutinizing the policies of healthcare providers recently. As the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal employment discrimination laws, healthcare providers with outdated policies and/or practices may find themselves in hot water. Here are the some of the most recent cases the EEOC has initiated:

 

EEOC v. Montrose Memorial Hospital, Inc.

EEOC sued Montrose Memorial Hospital for age discrimination because 29 employees over the age of 40 were terminated for supposed performance deficiencies while younger employees were treated more leniently. The EEOC alleged that hospital management made ageist comments, including that younger nurses could “dance around the older nurses” and that they preferred younger and “fresher” nurses.

Under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) it is unlawful to discriminate against an employee or applicant because of his/her age with respect to any term or of employment.

Montrose agreed to settle the suit for $400,000 and also agreed to take the following actions:

  • Conduct annual anti-discrimination training for its employees, managers, supervisors and human resources employees;
  • Revise and distribute its anti-discrimination policy; and
  • Report complaints of age discrimination to the EEOC.

 

EEOC v. Memorial Healthcare

The EEOC filed suit against Memorial Healthcare for religious discrimination because it withdrew a job offer as a medical transcriptionist due to Plaintiff’s religious objection to receiving an influenza vaccination. While Memorial has a policy requiring all new employees to obtain an influenza vaccination, it also has a policy that allows the use of masks for those who do not get vaccinated. The EEOC noted that Plaintiff would eventually work from home and offered to wear a mask.

The EEOC claimed that Memorial’s adverse action violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (Title VII) which protects employees against discrimination based on religion and requires employers to provide employees with reasonable accommodations to allow them to practice their sincerely held religious beliefs. The suit is currently being litigated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

 

EEOC v. Mission Hospital, Inc.

In another lawsuit regarding influenza policies, the EEOC filed suit against Mission Hospital for religious discrimination. EEOC stated that Mission requires all employees to receive an annual influenza vaccination. Mission allows exemptions based on religious beliefs but requires that requests be made by a specific date- Sept. 1. The EEOC alleged that three employees requested religious exemptions to the vaccination requirement and were denied because it was after the Sept. 1 deadline. As a Result, Mission terminated all three employees.

Mission Health System agreed to settle the case in the amount of $89,000, in addition to the following:

  • Revise its immunization policy to allow employees to request an exemption during the same period in which flu vaccines are to be received;
  • Provide annual training for management on Title VII, including the topic of religious accommodations and employer obligations;
  • Post a notice about the lawsuit to all employees; and
  • Provide the EEOC with periodic reports on requests for religious exemption from the flu vaccination.

 

EEOC v. Trinity Hospital

The EEOC sued Trinity Hospital for violating Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) because it failed to accommodate a nurse with a pregnancy-related health condition by refusing to provide her with a light-duty work assignment. The EEOC alleged that Trinity provided light-duty assignments exclusively to employees that suffered workplace injuries.

The EEOC has taken the position that under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of Title VII temporary light duty assignments must be offered to pregnant employees if the same accommodation is provided to non-pregnant employees.

Trinity agreed to a $95,000 settlement in addition to the following:

  • Revise its policies to assure compliance with Title VII and the ADA in requiring accommodations for pregnancy-related limitations;
  • Provide training to its human resources employees and ensure its policies are accessible to its employees; and
  • Provide the EEOC with periodic reports.

 

EEOC v. Pioneer Health Services, Inc.

The EEOC sued Pioneer Health Services for failing to provide a reasonable accommodation under the ADA when it terminated a social worker/therapist for exhausting her leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Plaintiff was approved for FMLA leave to undergo liver transplant surgery. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of leave for recovery was denied because she had exhausted her 12 weeks of leave. As a result, she was terminated. Pioneer also refused to re-hire Plaintiff for an available social worker/therapist position several months later.

EEOC claimed that Pioneer failed to accommodate Plaintiff’s disability by denying her extension of leave request and also retaliated against her when it refused to rehire her for an open position.

EEOC District director stated that “the intersection of the ADA and Family and Medical Leave Act will continue to be an area of focus for the EEOC,” Courts have ruled that disabled employees that exhaust FMLA may be entitled to additional leave as a reasonable accommodation under the ADA.

Pioneer settled the case for $85,000 and agreed to the following:

  • Provide employee training on the ADA;
  • Review and update its anti-discrimination policies;
  • Assign a senior company official, trained on ADA, with the responsibility of providing written recommendations to Pioneer’s management before terminating any employee based on his or her actual, perceived, or record of a physical or mental impairment, or for exhaustion of medical leave.

Learn from these healthcare employers mistakes to avoid similar outcomes. Make sure your policies and practices are compliant with the law. Find out how our comprehensive cloud based compliance management software solution can help you achieve peace of mind.

 

Register now for our upcoming Healthcare Compliance Symposium that will cover topics on HR compliance, elements of a compliance program, HIPAA Privacy and Security, and OSHA.

 

Tags: ADA, ADEA, discrimination, EEOC, Employment Law, FMLA, human resources, Title VII
Share this
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on X
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Reddit
  • Share by Mail
https://1sthcc.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/EEOC-Roundup.jpg 500 800 Catherine Short https://1sthcc.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/1sthcc-logo-1024x378.jpg Catherine Short2018-04-05 12:00:002025-04-15 12:54:06EEOC Roundup: Cases Against Healthcare Providers
You might also like
Q & A: Employment and Labor Law Q & A: Employment and Labor Law 
Common Mistakes and Pitfalls When Addressing Pregnancy Discrimination in the Workplace Let’s Talk About Sex, Baby: Common Mistakes and Pitfalls When Addressing Sex and Pregnancy Discrimination in the Workplace
Workplace Discrimination Statistics FY2017
compliance How to be a Wildly Effective Compliance Officer with Kristy Grant-Hart
2021 Presenter of the year Honoring Our 2021 Presenter of the Year
Infographic: Healthcare Compliance Training for the Workforce

Subscribe to Weekly eNewsletter

Get the latest healthcare compliance updates straight to your inbox.

Subscribe to Newsletter

Recent Posts

  • Navigating the HIPAA Security Landscape: A Comprehensive Guide to Security Risk Assessments
  • OSHA Recordkeeping in Healthcare: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions
  • Naughty or Nice? The Rules of Giving and Receiving in Healthcare
  • fraud waste abuse healthcare compliance
    FWA in Healthcare: How to Respond Appropriately to Detected Offenses
  • Infographic: 6 Areas of Potential Liability for Healthcare Providers
    6 Areas of Potential Liability for Healthcare Providers
  • 5 Benefits of Automating Incident Reporting in Healthcare

 

First Healthcare Compliance is a division of Panacea Healthcare Solutions. Learn more

Subscribe

Get the latest healthcare compliance updates straight to your inbox.

Subscribe to Newsletter

Connect

Get started: Request Demo

Call: 1-888-54-FIRST

E-mail: Contact us

  • Link to Instagram
  • Link to Youtube
  • Link to Facebook
  • Link to LinkedIn
  • Link to X
© Copyright 2026 Panacea Healthcare Solutions, LLC | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy and Copyright Notice
Scroll to top Scroll to top Scroll to top

We and our third-party partners use cookies to improve and personalize your experience on the site and with our services in addition to delivering and reporting on ads. Please visit our Privacy Statement for more information. By continuing to browse the site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Read Privacy Statement.

OKDismiss

Cookie and Privacy Settings



How we use cookies

We may request cookies to be set on your device. We use cookies to let us know when you visit our websites, how you interact with us, to enrich your user experience, and to customize your relationship with our website.

Click on the different category headings to find out more. You can also change some of your preferences. Note that blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience on our websites and the services we are able to offer.

Essential Website Cookies

These cookies are strictly necessary to provide you with services available through our website and to use some of its features.

Because these cookies are strictly necessary to deliver the website, refusing them will have impact how our site functions. You always can block or delete cookies by changing your browser settings and force blocking all cookies on this website. But this will always prompt you to accept/refuse cookies when revisiting our site.

We fully respect if you want to refuse cookies but to avoid asking you again and again kindly allow us to store a cookie for that. You are free to opt out any time or opt in for other cookies to get a better experience. If you refuse cookies we will remove all set cookies in our domain.

We provide you with a list of stored cookies on your computer in our domain so you can check what we stored. Due to security reasons we are not able to show or modify cookies from other domains. You can check these in your browser security settings.

Other external services

We also use different external services like Google Webfonts, Google Maps, and external Video providers. Since these providers may collect personal data like your IP address we allow you to block them here. Please be aware that this might heavily reduce the functionality and appearance of our site. Changes will take effect once you reload the page.

Google Webfont Settings:

Google Map Settings:

Google reCaptcha Settings:

Vimeo and Youtube video embeds:

Privacy Policy

You can read about our cookies and privacy settings in detail on our Privacy Policy Page.

Privacy Policy and Copyright Notice
Accept settingsHide notification only