Whether an employer at a large institution can deny and uphold workplace disability discrimination in violation of EEOC guidelines

Violating three EEOC guidelines, the Interim Provost of a large University categorically denied blatant (audio-taped) disability discrimination that occurred in the workplace. On that basis he upheld the job consequences that resulted from the disability discrimination to which the Plaintiff was originally subjected. 1. Should an employer at a large institution be allowed to deny, and thereby uphold, disability discrimination that blatantly occurred in the workplace? 2. Should an employer be permitted to justify discrimination in the workplace by further imputing false disabilities to an employee? 3. Should an employer at a large institution be exempted from following EEOC guidelines that protect employees from severe discrimination and resulting job consequences? 4. Would not a ruling that exempts employers from their EEOC-mandated responsibility to prevent and correct discrimination in the workplace have nationwide consequences? Would not such a ruling reduce institutional vigilance regarding occurrences of discrimination, and would it not reduce an institution ’s motivation to prevent and respond supportively to victims of discrimination? Would not such a ruling result in discrimination becoming more rampant? 5. Would not a Court ruling that directly contradicts EEOC guidelines seriously undermine the EEOC ’s credibility and purpose? Would not such a ruling betray the EEOC ’s purpose? 6. Would not a ruling that exempts employers at large institutions from their EEOC-mandated responsibility to prevent and correct discrimination enable employers to more easily cover-up discrimination in order to save their institution from public embarrassment and reductions in federal funding? Should such institutional gain be permitted even when it occurs at the expense of the users of that institution (aka “Institutional Betrayal ”)? 7. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit very recently ruled against Dykman. On the other hand, two EEOC investigators supported key tenets of Dykman ’s appeal. Can these conflicting decisions be harmonized by the Supreme Court? 8. EEOC-CVG1999-2 states that an employer is vicariously liable for acts of discrimination committed by lower supervisors. If it takes a year or ii more for an employer to become aware of a lower supervisor ’s discriminatory act, is that employer then not responsible for correcting the supervisor ’s discriminatory act? 9. Is not an employer ’s violation of EEOC guidelines aimed at correcting discrimination independent of an Institution ’s original act of committing the discrimination? And as a separate and independent later violation of EEOC guidelines, does not an Institution ’s later failure to correct discrimination restart the Statute of Limitations (SOL) clock?