EEOC Rules in Favor of Hopkins

On Wednesday, Dec. 17, one day before our cover story on ex-officer Jermaine Hopkins’ lengthy fallout with the Austin Police Department hit newsstands, the story’s 33-year-old subject received word that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) had ruled in his favor on one of the four complaints he filed against APD.

Rulings on the other three complaints have not yet been finalized, though Hopkins says he expects to receive letters denoting his right to sue the city and APD over allegations of discrimination and retaliation soon.

The completed ruling, however, determines certain acts by the APD to be in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and the Genetic Information Act of 2008 (GINA), which makes it illegal to discriminate against employees or applicants because of their genetic makeup. Namely, the EEOC found that health history forms the APD required Hopkins fill out were not “job-related and consistent with business necessity.”

“Any examinations or inquiries … must be limited in scope to what is necessary to make an appropriate assessment of an employee’s ability to perform essential job functions effectively and safely,” the ruling letter states. “Additionally, it is a violation of GINA to request, or require an individual to provide genetic information, including family medical history, during a medical examination related to employment.” EEOC Director Travis Hicks wrote that APD’s use of its Health Services History Form “as it applies to the Charging Party [Hopkins] and others” during the timeframe of Sept. 2, 2013, and June 25, 2014, were in violation of both standards.

An APD representative told the EEOC that it uses the health history form in question for both newly employed officers, as well as those returning to work after a period of 90 days (all officers returning to APD after a separation of 90 days or more can be subject to a Returning Officer Program), the ruling notes. The APD did not respond to the Chronicle’s request for comment on whether or not it plans to continue using the form in the future – or how it plans to amend the documents to better suit ADA and GINA requirements – and we will be sure to report an update upon any such response.

The EEOC will now engage in the process of conciliation – essentially an informal settlement – in search of “a just resolution of this matter.”

In an email, Hopkins wrote: “I am not happy about the fact that the discrimination exists. I am happy that the truth prevailed, however.”