Employee’s Utter Lack of Evidence Leads to Dismissal of All Claims

MSJs certainly aren't granted as much as they used to be, particularly in the employment context. In this case, however, the employee's failure to produce more than a scintilla of evidence in support of her claims led to a successful MSJ for the individual and entity employer defendants. More ›

Ohio Court: Sensitivity to Perfume Gives Rise to ADA Claim

An employee complains that co-workers' perfume use is exacerbating her asthma. She asks that a policy be enacted to restrict perfume usage in the office, or alternatively, to permit her to work from home. What do you do?  More ›

EEOC Clarifies Its Position Regarding Employers’ High School Diploma Requirements

On November 17, 2011, the EEOC issued an informal opinion letter discussing potential violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as a result of an employer’s requirement that applicants hold a high school diploma. Specifically, the EEOC opined that if an employer adopts a high school diploma requirement for a job, and that requirement “screens out” an individual who is unable to graduate because of a learning disability, the employer may not apply the standard unless it can demonstrate that the diploma requirement is job related and consistent with business necessity. The EEOC further stated that even if the diploma requirement is job related and consistent with business necessity, the employer may still have to determine whether a particular applicant whose learning disability prevented him from obtaining a high school diploma can perform the essential functions of the job with or without a reasonable accommodation. More ›

Employer’s "100% Healed" Policy Did Not Support "Regarded as" Disability Claim

A long-haul truck driver requested a transfer to a local driving route for personal reasons. Shortly after transferring, the driver discovered that the increased lifting requirements of the local position aggravated a preexisting back injury. Consequently, the driver requested a transfer back to a long-haul position. His request was denied based on the requirements of the collective bargaining agreement. As a result, the driver went on medical leave. The driver returned with restrictions from his treating physician that prevented him from performing the physical work required as part of the local route and stating that he could only work as a long-haul driver. The employer informed the driver that he could not return to work until he was released without restrictions. The driver sued the employer, alleging that the employer’s “100% healed” policy established that the employer regarded him as substantially limited in the major life activity of working in violation of the American’s with Disabilities Act (ADA). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit rejected this argument because the driver failed to establish that the employer believed that he was unable to work in a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs. Absent such a showing, the driver could not establish that the employer regarded him as disabled simply because it required him to establish that he was fully able to perform the specific requirements of the job he was performing for the employer. While implementing a “100% healed” policy may not serve as a per se violation of the ADA, employers must carefully apply such a policy to ensure that it does not trigger liability and should consult with counsel regarding any concerns.

Powers v. USF Holland, Inc., No. 10-2363 (7th Cir. Dec. 15, 2011)

DOL may Require Federal Contractors to have 7% Disabled Workforce

The Department of Labor yesterday announced a proposal to require all federal contractors to set a hiring goal of a labor force with at least 7% disabled workers. The Department already requires federal contractors to provide equal employment opportunities to individuals with disabilities, but this would be the first time that the Department would identify a strict numerical goal for contractors' disabled hiring. According to the DOL's news release : More ›

"11th Hour Change of Heart" Forms the Basis for FMLA Claim

As a result of the economic downturn, an employer sought to lay off various staff. A supervisor indicated that it would be “an obvious choice” to eliminate an employee in the communications department because the employee’s duties had changed significantly and the employer had stopped work on one of his core campaigns. After the employee was selected for layoff, a communications director notified the employer of his need for time off for knee replacement surgery. The employer then made a last-minute decision to lay off the communications director in lieu of the previously selected employee. The communications director sued, claiming that the employer had violated the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit found that the record contained sufficient evidence to create triable issues where: (1) the employer had originally identified a co-worker for termination, but then selected the communications director shortly after he announced intention to take FMLA leave; (2) management backdated a memo to make it appear that the termination decision was not influenced by the leave request; and (3) the employer gave an inconsistent explanation regarding the termination. When an employer decides to terminate an employee not originally slated for layoff, it should make sure that the employment action is accurately and timely documented and that the employer’s thought process is consistent, precise and well-reasoned.

Shaffer v. American Medical Association, No. 10-2117 (7th Cir. Oct. 18, 2011)

Employee’s ADA Claim Fails due to Inability to Establish that she was a “Qualified Individual”

An employee sued her employer claiming that she was: (1) discriminated against based upon her disability, (2) retaliated against, and (3) subjected to a hostile work environment when the employer failed to provide her with a disabled-access parking spot. The employee suffered from fibromyalgia and other health problems, which ultimately led to her taking considerable time off of work. In at least one year, she was absent for 59 percent of the time. In response to her claim, the employer indicated that the employee’s attendance was entirely unpredictable and that she rarely gave advance notice of her absences. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit determined that the employee’s claim failed from the inception because she was unable to establish that she was a qualified disabled individual, or, more specifically, that she was able to perform the essential functions of her job. The provision of a disabled parking space was not determinative, because it was questionable whether the space would have enabled her to perform the essential functions of her job. Because being present at her workplace was an essential function, and the employee’s history of absences demonstrated that she was incapable of regularly being at work, she could not overcome this initial hurdle. The court similarly determined that the employee was unable to establish a hostile work environment or retaliation based upon the same facts. Disability discrimination claims are on the rise. Employers must ensure that their policies and practices comply with the ADA and/or corresponding state anti-discrimination laws.

Colon-Fontanez v. San Juan, No. 10-1026 (1st Cir. Oct. 12, 2011)

Employee’s Failure to Demonstrate Satisfactory job Performance Renders ADA Claim Invalid

A part-time janitor did not receive any of the promotions for which he applied, and was later terminated for performance reasons. He sued his employer, claiming that his termination was discriminatory in that it was based upon his menta disability. In reviewing the evidence and ruling on the employer’s motion for summary judgment, the court determined that while the employee did have a mental disability and had made a complaint about discrimination, he had significant performance-related issues that contributed to his lack of promotion and his ultimate termination. Because the employee failed to demonstrate that he was meeting the employer’s reasonable expectations of the job and performing his job satisfactorily, he could not maintain his claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Further, the fact that a supervisor made a comment to him that he “should not be suing [his] employer” if he wanted to get a promotion was not determinative and the remark, alone, did not support his claim for retaliation. This case demonstrates the significance of having well- documented performance records, which, here, helped to overcome a supervisor’s “imprudent” remark and ultimately assisted the employer in securing a dismissal in its favor.

Dickerson v. Board of Trustees of Community College District No. 522, No. 08-CV-716 (7th Cir. Sept. 16, 2011).