A flight attendant sued United Airlines for allegedly violating federal disability laws after she was instructed to stop wearing clogs recommended by her doctor to ease foot pain because they did not meet the Chicago-based carrier's dress code.
Edie Hall accused United Airlines of disability discrimination and retaliation after the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled in May that the airline denied Hall a reasonable accommodation for her foot problems, as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Hall, 60, began wearing the clogs — Dansko XP Pro brand – in 2004 after her doctor prescribed them to provide the support she needed for her job, according to the lawsuit filed this month in federal court in Houston. But four years ago, Hall said in her lawsuit, she was ordered by her boss to stop wearing clogs in the airport because they did not comply with United's uniform policy.
"It's such a petty thing for United to have done," said Houston lawyer Robert R. Debes, Jr., who is representing Hall.
United spokesman Charles Hobart said there is no legal basis for the lawsuit because Hall has been allowed to wear the shoe of her choice since 2013 and has been told she may continue to wear them as long as she needs. He would not comment further.
But United required Hall to get doctors' notes every year to keep wearing clogs, which the EEOC has ruled violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. Under the law, an employee with a permanent condition does not have to make requests for accommodation year after year, according to the EEOC.
Hall has worked for United and its predecessor, Continental Airlines, for 32 years and lives in Spring. She flies international routes out of Houston.
Hall damaged her feet after from years of playing sports, including basketball and volleyball. After trying steroid injections and other treatments without success, her doctor suggested she wear Dansko clogs.
They fit well and Hall wore them without any special permission until 2013. By then, United had launched a uniform policy that allows flight attendants to wear clogs during flights, but limits their footwear choice to plain black shoes while they're walking in airports before and after their flights, according to the lawsuit.
Flight attendants could not deviate from the uniform without proof of a medical condition. Hall, who had just undergone foot surgery, was instructed to go through the airline's disability accommodation process.
Her doctor filled out forms, explaining how her permanent disability required Dansko clogs, according to court documents. But United said the Dansko clogs were not in compliance with the airline's uniform standards for airport use and she was instructed to find another shoe, according to the lawsuit.
If she didn't, the lawsuit alleged, Hall was told that she would be removed from duty until she could find footwear that fit the airline's dress code.
Hall filed a disability complaint with the EEOC in 2013, and soon after, United Airlines granted Hall a temporary accommodation to wear the Dansko clogs, but later revoked it. United Airlines rescinded the accommodation two more times, most recently in 2016, according to court documents.
Hall said in her lawsuit that she repeatedly provided written proof of her condition. Hall, who paid for the clogs and the cost of the annual medical exams to obtain necessary documentation, is seeking unspecified damages.
On Monday, Hall received a letter at her home from United Airlines telling her she is no longer required to get an annual doctor re-certification of her disability or submit a new request to wear the clogs each year, said Debes, her lawyer.
"I don't know whether it gives her a heck of a lot of comfort," he said. It was not signed by anyone and the accommodation could be rescinded, as the airline has done three times before, Debes said.
Hall, meanwhile, is still wearing the Dansko clogs, said Debes, but she remains at risk of getting grounded for violating the uniform rules.
Story and comments ➤ http://www.chron.com
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Maybe she should retire?
ReplyDelete