Case Summaries

Complainant alleged he was discriminated against when his landlord refused to enforce the existing no-smoking policy at the apartment he rented from respondent. Investigation showed that although respondent was informed by complaint’s doctor that cigarette smoke negatively affects complainant’s disability, respondent refused to accommodate complainant and instead facilitated on-site smoking by other tenants by designating the main entryway as a smoking area, allowing cigarette smoke to enter the common hallways and complainant’s apartment. Commission staff found that respondent had discriminated against complainant based on his disability, and in conciliation, respondent agreed to pay complainant $20,000.00 to settle the matter.

An office worker alleged that her employer discriminated against her on the basis of her race by subjecting her to a racially insensitive work environment, including an email sent by her own supervisor that contained a racially offensive term.  The parties mediated the complaint and a settlement was reached. Under the settlement, the employer agreed to provide mandatory diversity and sensitivity training for all employees in this office within 6 months.

A pregnant employee of a recreational hall alleged she was discriminated against when her employer told her a replacement has been hired for her position and she would not be needed for any shifts until after her baby was born.  Commission staff investigated and found substantial evidence of discrimination based on pregnancy. The parties reached a conciliation agreement in which respondent agreed to compensate complainant close to $2,500 in back pay, to undergo training, and to adopt an anti-discrimination policy.

A patient alleged that he was discriminated against because of his disability when his request to have his service dog accompany him during his treatment at a local hospital was denied. The patient was asked to provide proof of the animal’s certification, which is not required under the law.  Following an investigation by ASCHR, substantial evidence was found that the patient was discriminated against when he was not allowed to have his service animal present during his treatment. The parties conciliated the case, and respondent agreed to pay the patient $7,500 and make a $2,500 donation to a service animal charity.

A voter with a visual impairment filed a complaint against a borough for not providing voting equipment that would allow him to vote privately and independently in a local election. The Commission’s investigation found substantial evidence that the borough discriminated against the voter when it denied his request for accommodation. As a result of the conciliation between the two parties, the borough agreed to study the options for providing accessible voting equipment, implement its chosen option if feasible, and to share information discovered with fellow boroughs and cities.