ViaQuest, LLC, an Ohio-based provider of healthcare and employment services, agreed to pay $175,000 and implement significant non-monetary relief to resolve a disability discrimination charge arising from its hiring process.
According to the EEOC's investigation, a qualified applicant with a disability sought employment with ViaQuest and requested a reasonable accommodation during the hiring process so she could participate fully and be fairly evaluated.
ViaQuest allegedly denied this accommodation and then refused to employ her because of her disability, even though she could perform the essential functions of the position with reasonable accommodation.
The EEOC alleged this conduct violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by both failing to accommodate and by using the applicant's disability as a determinative factor in the hiring decision.
To resolve the charge, ViaQuest and its affiliates agreed to pay $175,000 to the applicant and to adopt significant injunctive measures designed to prevent future discrimination and retaliation. These measures typically include ADA-compliant policies, training for managers and human resources personnel on reasonable accommodation and nondiscrimination, recordkeeping and reporting obligations to the EEOC, and notice to employees about their rights.
Source: https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/viaquest-llc-pay-175000-eeoc-disability-charge
Commentary
A "qualified applicant with a disability" in the healthcare setting is an individual with a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, who meets the legitimate skill, experience, education and other requirements of the position, and who can perform the essential functions of the position with or without reasonable accommodation.
For healthcare organizations, defining who is "qualified" starts with accurate, up-to-date job descriptions that clearly distinguish essential functions from marginal tasks and reflect actual clinical and operational demands.
When those descriptions exist before recruitment, they become strong evidence of what is truly essential if the organization later has to defend a hiring decision or show why an accommodation was not reasonable.
Accommodations are always determined on a case-by-case basis through a documented interactive process involving the individual, often, their healthcare providers, and the employer. Relying on assumptions about a disability, a diagnosis, physical appearance, or stereotypes creates risk.
ADA protections include job applicants, including the duty to determine and provide reasonable accommodations in the hiring process and to avoid retaliating against someone who requests them.
Healthcare employers expose themselves to similar risk when they ignore or delay accommodation requests during interviews, assessments, or onboarding; when they withdraw offers because of disability without a defensible analysis; or when they allow negative treatment after an applicant or new hire asserts ADA rights.
The EEOC's guidance stresses that safety-based exclusions must rest on a direct threat analysis grounded in objective medical and job-related evidence, not vague fears about clinical risk, patient safety, or liability.
To reduce exposure, healthcare organizations need a disciplined ADA hiring framework involving HR, compliance, legal, and clinical leadership, rather than leaving the matter to individual managers or recruiters.
The interactive process should include prompt attention to requests, a documented dialogue, and consideration of specific accommodations such as modified schedules, assistive technology, adjusted communication methods, or altered testing conditions.
Training is crucial. Recruiters, nurse managers, medical directors, and department leaders should be trained to recognize when a comment or request triggers ADA obligations and how to communicate the request to those in the organization authorized to engage in the interactive process.
To help avoid systemic risk, have periodic audits of hiring files to identify patterns such as unexplained rejections of candidates who disclosed disabilities, withdrawn offers following post-offer medical exams, or repeated failure to document the interactive process.
