Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission to pay over $71k in discrimination case
PENNSYLVANIA (WTAJ) — The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC) has been ordered to pay over $71,000 to a former worker as part of a disability and discrimination case.
The PUC was ordered to pay $71,560.42 and to continue paying the former employee for lost wages for up to one year. The Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (PHRC) found the PUC discriminated against an employee based on their disability and failed to provide them with reasonable accommodations. They also noted that the working conditions were so intolerable that the employee was forced to resign.
Pennsylvania had the most Medicaid fraud charges filed in 2024
'This decision reaffirms the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission's commitment to protecting the rights of employees with disabilities,' PHRC Executive Director Chad Dion Lassiter, MSW said. 'Employers have a legal and moral obligation to provide reasonable accommodations, and those that fail to do so will be held accountable under the law. We stand firm in our mission to ensure workplaces across the Commonwealth are free from discrimination.
Here's what the commission ordered for both parties:
The former employee will file semi-annual reports to PUC indicating the gross amount of earnings made during the previous six-month period, for a period of one year. If the amount they earned is less than what they would have earned as an employee of PUC, PUC shall pay the amount of gross earnings they would have earned with PUC minus their gross earnings during the relevant six-month period.
The former employee will also continue making good faith efforts to secure employment in mitigation of the damages.
PUC to cease and desist from denying reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities and from otherwise discriminating against employees with disabilities.
PUC to attend mandatory training provided by the PHRC or by an entity approved by the PHRC.
PUC to implement policies requiring individualized assessments of the essential functions of a position prior to denying requests for reasonable accommodations.
The PHRC, the state's civil rights enforcement agency, urges anyone who has experienced acts of discrimination to file a complaint by calling 717-787-4410.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The Biggest Boondoggles in Trump's Big Beautiful Bill
The House reconciliation bill — officially known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act — is extraordinary in how much it robs from the poor to boost the rich. Its tax cuts for the wealthy are financed by cuts to health care coverage (both in Medicaid and Obamacare) that will help Republicans swell the ranks of the uninsured by 16 million, according to the Congressional Budget Office. But the Big Beautiful Bill is not just an ugly tax bill where society's less fortunate are made to sacrifice for the benefit of the wealthiest. It's also a spending bill that steers hundreds of billions of dollars into new pet projects. This is financed with debt. All in, the BBB will spike deficits by $2.4 trillion over 10 years, according to CBO, likely increasing the national debt by $3 billion when interest payments are included. The bill's spending has angered budget hawks in the Senate like Rand Paul (R.-Ky.). It has been part of the public split between Donald Trump and Elon Musk, who calls the bill a 'disgusting abomination' that will squander any supposed savings imposed by DOGE, the so-called Department of Government Efficiency. Conservative budget analysts are sounding the alarm: 'This inability to set priorities is going to bring a debt crisis,' Jessica Riedl, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute tells Rolling Stone. In fact, the bill would create so much new debt that it risks triggering a mechanism called 'sequestration,' which would impose deep, mandatory cuts to Medicare. These cuts to the health care of America's seniors would start next year, and rise to half-a-trillion dollars over ten years. The BBB's spending provisions have received far less scrutiny than the tax cuts and safety-net slashes. But the bill lards new funds on a range of already-fat-cats — from the military-industrial complex and Big Tech to private prisons and construction concerns. Below we survey the biggest boondoggles of the Big Beautiful Bill: The BBB proposes spending nearly $50 billion for construction of Trump's border wall with Mexico. Sen. Paul, in an appearance on Face the Nation last week, accused the administration of waste. He cited an existing Customs and Border Patrol estimate that wall construction should cost only about $6.5 billion over 1,000 miles: 'They have inflated the cost of the wall eightfold,' said Paul. (After his TV hit, CPB appears to have scrubbed the construction cost estimate Paul quoted from its website.) Paul even questioned the need for more wall, at all, given his view that Trump has 'essentially stopped the border flow without new money and without new legislation.' Offering just a small taste of the anticipated building bonanza, the Trump administration awarded a $70 million, 7-mile wall-construction contract to California-based Granite Construction in March. The bill includes $45 billion for 'Adult Alien Detention Capacity' and 'Family Residential Centers.' This funding would enable the administration to ramp up its mass deportation program for undocumented immigrants. As the nation has seen from recent high-profile Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids at restaurants, this involves ripping productive members out of society and making them wards of the state, at great public cost, until they can be deported. The money would be a boon to private prison contractors and construction firms. For a taste of where this is headed, consider that the administration has already inked a 15-year, $1 billion deal with GEO Group to house ICE detainees at Delaney Hall, a 1,000 bed facility in Newark, New Jersey. The mayor of the city was arrested by ICE amid a recent protest at the facility. The private prison company is well connected to the Trump administration. As Rolling Stone has reported, Attorney General Pam Bondi is a former lobbyist for GEO Group, which also made a $500,000 donation to the Trump inaugural committee. A GEO subsidiary donated $1.3 million to a Super PAC that backed Trump's 2024 election. The BBB puts up nearly $25 billion for the Golden Dome. The satellite-based missile defense project builds off the branding of Israel's 'Iron Dome,' a ground-based defensive system that can intercept rockets and missiles launched from local militants or state actors like Iran. 'To the extent we match Iron Dome technology, we will be well protected from a missile attack from Canada or Mexico,' says Riedl of the Manhattan Institute, sarcastically. 'But not necessarily from Russia, North Korea or China.' In reality the Golden Dome appears to be Trump's revival of the Ronald Reagan era Strategic Defense Initiative, or SDI — a hugely expensive, largely ineffective space-based missile-defense system derided in the 1980s as 'Star Wars.' 'Ultimately this is $25 billion more for SDI' says Rieidl. 'This is a noble idea — but a lot of spending up until now hasn't brought a lot of success.' Trump envisions the BBB as a downpayment on a total investment of $175 million. The Golden Dome promises to be a golden goose for defense contractors. SpaceX, the rocket company founded by Trump's billionaire benefactor Elon Musk, who's currently feuding with Trump, is reportedly vying for a contract. So are the Peter Thiel-linked tech firm Palantir and longtime military-industrial heavyweights like Raytheon and Lockheed Martin. Including the Golden Dome, the Big Beautiful Bill increases America's Pentagon spending by a colossal $150 billion. 'This is a bill from the military-industrial complex advocates who are padding the military budget,' according to Paul, who has long criticized the Defense Department for failing to pass every audit to which it's been subjected. Budgets are moral documents. And metaphorically people often speak of the tradeoff between 'guns and butter' — or programs that defend the public and those that keep the public out of misery. The guns side of the Big Beautiful Bill is financed entirely by cuts to butter. The bill strips $128 billion in funding to the states for the SNAP food assistance program that keeps American families from going hungry. It also aims to avoid another $92 billion in spending by knocking people out of the program with red tape and work requirements, including for parents of argues that the Pentagon should be forced to achieve cost efficiencies before it receives any new federal dollars. 'One of DOGE's great failures was essentially ignoring the enormous waste and cost overruns inside the Pentagon. There is a reason the Defense Department cannot pass an audit. There is so much waste. It has significant cost overruns — particularly in government contracts and procurement — that absolutely must be addressed before we further increase defense spending,' says the Manhattan institute fellow. The House bill steers new money to more than a dozen weapons systems, including many dogged by cost overruns, construction delays, performance issues, and questions of combat capability. On the airplane side, this list includes: $4.5 billion for the B-21 Raider, the Air Force's newest long-range stealth bomber, which cost nearly $700 million per aircraft to produce. The two-person Northrup Gruman-built plane may be poorly suited to modern warfighting, where swarms of unmanned drones are becoming the dominant air threat. $3.2 billion for the Boeing-built F-15EX. The planes cost $90 million a pop, making them more expensive than the notoriously costly F-35A. Unlike that fighter, the F-15EX is not a stealth aircraft. And production has been snarled by manufacturing problems. A recent federal assessment put it bluntly: 'Boeing has experienced increased quality deficiencies.' Ships include: $4.6 billion for Virginia Class submarines. The nuclear submarine program has a reported cost overrun of $17 billion and has delivered boats massively behind schedule. The contractors are General Dynamics Electric Boat and Huntington Ingalls Industries. The Pentagon already has 23 of these submarines. $2.1 billion for San Antonio Class 'amphibious transport docks.' This ship was put on production pause in 2023 because of massive cost overruns. The boats are supposed to land Marines into onshore combat, but have been found by DOD testers to only be suitable 'in a benign environment' because the ship is 'not effective, suitable and not survivable in a combat situation.' Huntington Ingalls Industries is the contractor. The Pentagon already has 13 of these boats. More from Rolling Stone Donald Trump Is Destroying the Economy and Waging War on the Poor Trump Moves to Deploy National Guard to L.A. Over ICE Protests 'Dejected' Trump Says Relationship With Musk Is Over; Calls Him a 'Big-Time Drug Addict': Report Best of Rolling Stone The Useful Idiots New Guide to the Most Stoned Moments of the 2020 Presidential Campaign Anatomy of a Fake News Scandal The Radical Crusade of Mike Pence
Forbes
3 hours ago
- Forbes
Big Beautiful Bill Looks To Reverse Affordable Care Act Coverage Gains
The House budget reconciliation bill, dubbed the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act,' includes large cuts in Medicaid spending that could lead to millions of newly uninsured individuals if the legislation passes in the Senate. The proposed law also contains provisions that alter the Affordable Care Act exchange landscape, potentially leading to millions more uninsured. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that at least five million current marketplace enrollees would lose coverage by 2034. The nonpartisan and policy research firm KFF says the number of people with marketplace plans could shrink even more, by around eight million. Changes in the ACA marketplace would make coverage more expensive, as enhanced tax credits expire, and harder to obtain as open enrollment windows shorten, the paperwork burden for beneficiaries increases and automatic re-enrollment ends. Americans who purchase health coverage through the ACA marketplace exchanges could also soon face higher out-of-pocket maximums in their coverage plans, which means higher cost-sharing. The United States Treasury Department announced in Sept. 2024 that almost 50 million people have obtained healthcare coverage through marketplace exchanges created by the ACA since its enactment more than a decade ago. The Department data show that one in seven Americans have been or are covered by the law. And between President Biden's inauguration in Jan. 2021 and Sept. 2024, 18.2 million Americans got ACA coverage for the first time. Rising enrollment since 2021 has been driven by an expansion under the Biden Administration of premium tax credits to include individuals and families with household incomes up to 400% of the federal poverty level, which equates to $58,000 for a single person and $120,000 for a family of four. Republican lawmakers in both the House and Senate, in concert with the Trump administration, are now looking to reverse some of those gains. The ACA has gone through a tumultuous history since it was signed in 2010. The law has faced repeated calls for repeal by Republicans. For several years following its passage it wasn't a particularly well-liked piece of legislation, Yet the ACA is now more popular than ever, with over 60% of the public having a favorable view of the law, according to KFF. The ACA is a comprehensive reform bill, passed by Congress in 2010, that increases health insurance coverage for the uninsured and implements a wide range of reforms to the health insurance market as well as an expansion of Medicaid, the public insurance program that provides health coverage to low-income families and individuals. Importantly, under the ACA, individuals who may have been uninsured due to preexisting conditions or limited finances can secure affordable health plans through the health insurance marketplaces established by the law. The demographics of people on Medicaid are fairly similar to those enrolled in ACA plans. The legislation has its critics. They point to certain flaws in design and implementation, Indeed, in the early years under the Obama Administration, insurers exited in droves and premiums rates increased substantially. Under the first Trump administration, ACA enrollment fell overall while numbers of uninsured rose by more than two million. Following unsuccessful efforts to scuttle the ACA, the president issued executive orders to 'improve ACA market dynamics.' ACA exchanges did stabilize in the latter half of Trump's first term as insurers returned and the rate of premium growth decreased. When Biden assumed office, his administration sought to enlarge the ACA program and counter several of the changes implemented by the first Trump administration that had shrunk its size. The Biden administration was largely successful in terms of increasing the number of people who signed up in the ACA exchanges and reducing the percentage of Americans without health insurance. Troubled times for folks enrolled in the ACA exchanges aren't solely because of possible passage of the budget reconciliation bill. CVS Health announced last month it will pull Aetna out of the ACA marketplace in 2026, leaving about one million people across 17 states searching for new healthcare coverage. Aetna's withdrawal from the marketplace will mark the second time the carrier stepped away from the ACA exchanges. The company left the ACA marketplace in 2018 and came back in 2022. Other carriers left the individual health insurance marketplace in 2017 and 2018 amid uncertainty over whether the ACA would be repealed or replaced. While there isn't the same kind of uncertainty now regarding the ACA's survival, disruption is occurring in the space. This could soon lead to more carriers exiting the market.
The Hill
6 hours ago
- The Hill
GOP looks to win over Collins, Murkowski on Trump bill
Senate Republicans are trying to win over Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) to back the party's ambitious tax cut plan amid fears they could lose a couple of conservative senators. President Trump has made it a priority to engage with Sens. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who all have concerns about the emerging package. But some Republicans worry Johnson and Paul could be particularly tough sells on the legislation, which makes winning over Murkowski and Collins all the more important in a vote where the GOP cannot afford more than three defections. 'It's shortening,' one Senate Republican told The Hill about the party's margins. Paul has long been viewed as highly likely to vote against the eventual bill as it includes a $4 trillion debt ceiling hike. He's made it known that is a red line for him. But it's Johnson who is a more acute problem for leadership. According to two sources familiar with the meeting, Johnson on Wednesday got into an extended back-and-forth with Trump during the Senate Finance Committee's meeting at the White House, with one of the sources going a step further and describing it as 'contentious.' While Republicans think Johnson may still come to back the bill, the exchange only made GOP leaders more unsettled about him. That means they have to make sure Murkowski and Collins, who memorably voted against Trump on various issues in his first term, are in play on the bill. 'It's a very delicate balance,' Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) told The Hill. 'Obviously, we have people that have different priorities, different equities that run the gamut in terms of the political spectrum.' 'We're hearing everybody out, finding out what's important to them, and figuring out if there's a way to address that in the context of the bill,' Thune continued. 'But it's a process.' Thune is bearing the brunt of the Collins-Murkowski work, multiple Senate GOP sources said. He's held a number of one-and-one and small group meetings. Both senators have big-ticket items they want to see revised in the bill. Murkowski has made clear her worries about potential Medicaid work requirements, as she believes her state will have trouble implementing them due to its outdated payment systems for the program, and the bill's potential nixing of renewable energy tax credits. The pair have both expressed concerns over what overall reductions could mean for key segments of their states, including tribes for Murkowski and rural individuals and hospitals for Collins. The Maine Republican also cited possible Medicaid beneficiary cuts when she voted against the budget blueprint in early April. The push is only expected to intensify in the coming days as relevant committees unveil their portions of the bill text. 'We're still building things on our side. … Everyone is pulling this gumby in lots of different directions,' Murkowski told reporters on Thursday, explaining that while there are provisions for energy and the Coast Guard that are very positive for her state, more is needed on the Medicaid side. Murkowski also indicated that while she has not gotten the call from Trump just as conservatives did, she also is in touch with other administration figures. Among those is Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz, whom she talked to briefly after he addressed a Senate GOP luncheon last week. The two are expected to speak early this week to discuss her concerns more in depth. Collins separately is expected to lean on a number of agency heads as she carries out what members have described as a methodical process. 'Susan works extremely hard, [is] very detailed, knows everything, has a lot of history. [There's] different issues in Maine than in a lot of other places and everybody respects that.' said Sen. Shelley Moore Capito ( a member of GOP leadership. There are also political considerations at play, leading some to believe Murkowski will be easier to win. Collins is up for reelection next year in a state that voted for former Vice President Harris. Whether either backs the bill may depend on the impacts of the package on their respective states. Murkowski backed the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in large part because the bill opened up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for drilling, which had been among her top priorities in the upper chamber throughout her tenure. 'If it works for Alaska, he's not going to need to pressure me,' Murkowski said when asked if it would be a mistake for Trump to pressure her during this process. 'If it works for Alaska, it works for me and gets my vote.'
