Henry Velez suffered from a rare medical condition that made him unable to sweat. Despite that problem, he worked in manual labor for most of his life. He had one work restriction: He needed to take breaks to cool down.

While working for Agro Distribution, he spent about two years without any problems — his manager allowed him to take breaks as needed.

Then every employee in Velez’s position was assigned a new duty — the unpleasant task of unloading dirty, empty barrels that had been used to feed cattle. Velez told his boss his condition prevented him from helping.

The manager wouldn’t hear of it — after all, he’d been performing similar work for two years. What was different now?

Velez filed a complaint with the EEOC, alleging the company violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The agency thought he had a case.

However, the EEOC handled the matter in a way that was less than objective, according to the company. When an investigator came to the facility, she insulted managers, scoffed at their answers to questions and attempted to rephrase their statements to favor Velez.

Afterward, the company claimed it tried to contact the EEOC to offer a settlement, but the agency never responded.

Eventually, the issue ended up in court. The judge agreed with the company that Velez wasn’t protected by the ADA. And, the court ruled, the EEOC “failed to conciliate in good faith.”

The final decision: The case was tossed, and the EEOC was forced to pay Agro’s legal fees.

Cite: EEOC v. Agro Distribution LLC.

For that reason, Brian Rawsthorne of Manchester, England, is in trouble.

Rawsthorne received $19,000 in Disability Living Allowance during a 35-month period after he told the Department for Work and Pensions he suffered the pain as a result of burns and lung damage from a 1979 mine explosion, according to the Daily Mail.

Then, an investigator received an anonymous tip that Rawsthorne had officiated at soccer and cricket games and that he’d completed the 6.2-mile race. (Was the tipster someone who disliked one of his calls?)

Rawsthorne said in court that he walked most of the race and was in “absolute agony” afterward, unable to walk at all for five weeks.

Despite that testimony, he was found guilty of failing to notify authorities of a change in his circumstances. A fraud manager said the agency plans to seek repayment for the money from Rawsthorne.

Reason: The supervisor didn’t know the employee has a form of autism.

Thomas Mangano was hired as director of manufacturing by software firm Verity, Inc.

Steven Springsteel became his supervisor.

Mangano didn’t like it when Springsteel would call him “Rain Man” in front of co-workers.

Then, Mangano was passed over for a promotion to vice president of manufacturing and operations.

Months later, he was diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome, a form of autism.

After receiving that diagnosis, Mangano sued Verity and Springsteel, alleging disability discrimination and “verbal harassment” based on a perceived disability in violation of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).

Trial and appeals courts both ruled for the company.

FEHA states that a mental disability includes being regarded or treated by the employer as having any mental condition that makes achievement of a major life activity difficult.

The court said Verity showed it had legitimate business reasons for hiring a vice president from outside the company and that Mangano didn’t show those reasons were a pretext for disability discrimination.

On the harassment claim, the court said annoying or merely offensive language in the workplace isn’t actionable. 

Another factor in this case: Mangano wasn’t diagnosed with Asperger’s until after he was passed over for the promotion. The company didn’t know about his disability when it made its choice for vice president.

Does an obviously disabled employee need to ask for accommodation before the employer’s duty to accommodate kicks in? A federal appeals court says no, the employee doesn’t need to ask for the accommodation.

Here’s what happened: 19-year-old Patrick Brady took a job as a pharmacy assistant at a Wal-Mart store in Centereach, NY. His job included stocking shelves and dispensing prescriptions. He had two years experience at a similar job at a local pharmacy.

Brady has cerebral palsy. He walked slowly with a shuffle and limp, spoke slowly and quietly, and had a poor sense of direction.

After working one day in the pharmacy, Brady perceived that his supervisor was unhappy with him. Brady says he had no trouble performing his duties, but his supervisor wanted him to work faster.

The supervisor thought Brady had trouble matching customers’ names to their prescriptions. But Brady said he didn’t have trouble at Wal-Mart or in his two previous years of experience.

At the end of his first shift, Brady asked about his schedule, and his supervisor said she’d call him. After not receiving a phone call for days, Brady went to visit the store to get his schedule. He worked two more days in the pharmacy without incident but thought his supervisor was frustrated with him.

Brady was transferred to a position collecting shopping carts in the parking lot. Then he was transferred to stocking in the food section. 

At the end of his first day in the food section, Brady was given a schedule that conflicted with his community college classes which he’d noted on Wal-Mart’s availability for work forms. Frustrated, Brady called the store and quit the next day.

Employee files lawsuit

After quitting, Brady became depressed, lost self-confidence, withdrew from his family, became angry and lost interest in his community college studies.

Then he filed a lawsuit against Wal-Mart, alleging a number of counts of discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

A jury found Brady was disabled under ADA and that Wal-Mart discriminated against him on the basis of his disability by transferring him from the pharmacy to the parking lot. It also found Wal-Mart had failed to reasonably accommodate him. He was awarded a total of $900,000 in compensatory and punitive damages.

Wal-Mart appealed on various counts, but the Second Circuit Court upheld the lower court ruling.

The decision on one of Wal-Mart’s grounds for appeal is something other companies should take note of.

Wal-Mart argued it had no duty to accommodate Brady because he never asked to be accommodated. 

The court said Brady didn’t have to ask. The court said the ADA “speaks of accommodating ‘known’ disabilities, not just disabilities for which accommodation has been requested.”

There was no doubt Brady had a disability from his physical appearance, according to the testimony of several people during the trial.

The court has ruled previously that employers have the duty to engage in an “interactive process” with employees to assess whether a worker’s disability can be reasonably accommodated. It said Wal-Mart failed to do that.

What do you think of this case? It can be a sticky situation for an employer to take the first step and approach an employee about accommodation for a real or perceived disability. How would you have handled the supervisor who thought Brady was working too slowly even though he made no mistakes in his job? Let us know.

Keith McNiffe was on disability after an operation left him unable to walk. That was legitimate.

But collecting benefits while officiating at 67 soccer matches? That’s another story.

McNiffe was also mayor of his town in Wales and initially stepped down to fight the fraud allegations against him.

Later he admitted failing to notify authorities of the change in his condition, according to wire service reports.

A court handed him a suspended four-month jail term, ordered him to complete 200 hours’ unpaid work and pay 75 pounds (about $150) in costs. He also has to repay 9,000 pounds ($18,000) in disability benefits he collected.

The chief fraud officer for Wales had this to say about the case, “Magistrates gave him a yellow card which sends out a clear message to everyone out there. Any other offense and the result will be a sending off.”

Trying to keep your company’s workers’ compensation insurance premium from rising significantly? This story may be one of your worst nightmares.

MCI employee Edith Hizey was participating in a dance contest on company property. She twisted her knee, fell and hit her head.

She suffered back and knee pain.

An administrative law judge and the Kansas Workers’ Compensation Board both awarded Hizey total temporary disability and permanent partial disability.

MCI appealed to the state Court of Appeals on the grounds that the injury occurred during a recreational event and wasn’t related to her everyday job duties.

• The court also ruled in Hizey’s favor. Its reasons:
• MCI offered workers vacation time, bonuses and prizes for participating in the dance contest.
• The company benefited from the contest because it encouraged employees to remain employed there.
• MCI planned the event.
• Employees were paid for the time they participated.
• The accident happened on company property, and
• The contest occurred during regular business hours.

So, on its face, paying comp for a dancing accident may seem ludicrous. But the way this and many other states’ comp laws are set up, companies often need better arguments to deny comp other than “it was recreational” and “it wasn’t related to the worker’s job.”