Case Summaries

Complainant alleged that he entered Respondent’s thrift store with his service animal and the owner asked if he could leave his dog in the car. Complainant asked if he had to and the owner said he preferred not to get hair on the clothing. Complainant said nothing more and left, but as his wife was leaving she told the owner it was a service animal and that the owner was violating the ADA law. Respondent didn’t deny the statements attributed to him, said he had always allowed service animals but he didn’t know until Complainant’s wife yelled at him as she was leaving that it was not just a dog. A resolution conference was held during which the parties had meaningful conversation. During that conference, Respondent advised Complainant’s wife had been leaving very disparaging comments on review sites that were harming his new business. It was agreed amongst the parties that those negative reviews would be removed and that Respondent and his girlfriend, the only employees, would receive training about public accommodation, and develop a policy so that, should their business grow to include paid employees, there would be a policy and procedure in place for on-boarding. The Respondent also agreed to post signage on the entrance to ensure patrons knew that service animals were welcome.

Complainant alleged disability discrimination when her employment was terminated after Complainant requested and was granted an accommodation. Respondent asserts Complainant’s employment was terminated because of poor work performance. A Resolution Conference was held, and Respondent agreed to pay Complainant $10,200. The Commission was notified on or
around May 15, 2024, that Complainant had received his monetary settlement, and the case was closed.

Complainant alleged that Respondent discriminated against her based on her race when it cut her schedule more significantly than those of workers not of her race. Respondent denied the
Complainants allegations and asserted that the Complainant was the most recent hire in her position, that shift availability decreases during the winter months, and that schedules are assigned
based on seniority. A Resolution Conference was held which resulted in a Pre-Determination Settlement, wherein the Complainant agreed to withdraw her complaint and the Respondent agreed
to provide the Complainant with a reference letter. The Commission received notice on or around May 23, 2024, the Complainant received her reference letter, and a closing order was issued shortly
after.

The Complainant asserted that the Respondent discriminated against her based on her race, subjected her to different terms and conditions of employment, and then retaliated against her for complaining about discrimination when it terminated her employment after she tendered her resignation. A Resolution Conference was held which resulted in a Pre-Determination Settlement
Agreement. The parties agreed that the Respondent would provide the Complainant with a letter acknowledging that the that the Respondent is apologetic for the way that the complainant believes
she was treated, and that the Complainant is a decent human being; the Respondent also agreed not to ban, debar, or otherwise prevent the Complainant from working in its industry. The Complainant agreed to a one year cooling off period where Complainant would refrain from patronizing one of Respondents specific locations. The Commission was notified Respondent provided the letter to Complainant, fulfilling the remaining term of the agreement. This case was closed on May 13, 2024.

Complainant alleged that Respondent had hired her knowing she required accommodations for a disability and that, in the beginning, Respondent provided her with some accommodations.
Complainant further alleged that when she requested two days off as an accommodation, Respondent terminated her employment rather than provide it. Respondent denied the allegations in part, admitting it provided a stool for her feet when she requested it, but that when Respondent’s Human Resources department provided her with ADA paperwork should she require more, Complainant never responded. Respondent asserted it terminated her employment for missing one third of her 90-day probationary period as a newly hired receptionist for its office. Pre-Resolution Conference evidence review and fact-finding showed that even if Complainant had filled out the ADA paperwork, she required intermittent and undetermined leave for an undetermined time-frame, which was not a reasonable accommodation as her specific position was customer-facing and the essential functions required her to be reliably present. Despite this, parties elected to try to resolve without additional investigation, agreeing to a neutral letter of reference, coverage of Complainant’s medical deductible in the amount of $500, and by adding clarifying language to Respondent’s policies regarding the need for informal and formal accommodations in the workplace, along with specifying who makes those determinations. On or around May 6, 2024, the Commission was notified all terms of the agreement had been met, and the case was closed.