In the second such case against a Gannett subsidiary this year, federal workplace regulators have sued Tennessee's Jackson Sun, claiming the paper fired a disabled print manager, David Dubois, because of his back injuries.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed the suit on Monday against Gannett Satellite Information Network, doing business as Jackson Sun Media Works, and Gannett Co.
"In February 2008," the EEOC said in a statement, "Dubois went on medical leave for back surgery due to a herniated disc. During the surgery he sustained permanent spinal cord damage that limited some lower body functions. According to the EEOC’s suit, the Sun terminated Dubois one week after he returned to work and expressed a need for reasonable accommodation. The company told him that it had eliminated his job."
Publisher Roy Heatherly told the newspaper that he had not been served with the lawsuit and could not comment, the Sun reported yesterday.
Earlier: EEOC sues GCI, saying Arizona worker fired for mental disability.
"In February 2008," the EEOC said in a statement, "Dubois went on medical leave for back surgery due to a herniated disc. During the surgery he sustained permanent spinal cord damage that limited some lower body functions. According to the EEOC’s suit, the Sun terminated Dubois one week after he returned to work and expressed a need for reasonable accommodation. The company told him that it had eliminated his job."
Publisher Roy Heatherly told the newspaper that he had not been served with the lawsuit and could not comment, the Sun reported yesterday.
Earlier: EEOC sues GCI, saying Arizona worker fired for mental disability.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI think Gannett will see more and more of these along with age discrimination complaints, or at least I hope so.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI have some familiarity with this case, and I STRESS that claims in a lawsuit represent only one perspective. I'm sure there are plenty of meritorious cases against individual Gannett subsidiaries, this is NOT one of those.
ReplyDeleteAlso, a prior post had extensive background on this particular case. Jim: please explain why it was removed?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete