Employment Law Chicago Blog

  • 7th Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment on Race Discrimination and Retaliation Claims

    On March 14, 2018, the 7th Circuit affirmed an order of summary judgment in a Section 1981 lawsuit in which the plaintiff alleged race discrimination and retaliation.  Madlock v. WEC Energy Group, Inc., No. 17-1278 (7th Cir. 3/14/2018).  The plaintiff alleged that she was transferred from one section of her employer to another as a result of racial discrimination.  She also alleged that the employer retaliated against her by disciplining her after she filed an internal discrimination complaint against her former supervisor.  The 7th Circuit stated that "[w]e recently cleaned out the 'rat's nest of surplus tests' that plagued our case law on the subject of race discrimination."

  • 7th Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment on FMLA and ADA Claims

    On March 7, 2018, the 7th Circuit affirmed an order of summary judgment in favor of the defendant, employer in a lawsuit in which the plaintiff, former employee alleged that her former employer interfered with her right to take a leave of absence under the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"), discriminated against her on the basis of her disabilities in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), failed to provide her with a reasonable accommodation for her disabilities, in violation of the ADA, and unlawfully retaliated against her for exercising her rights under the FMLA and ADA.  Guzman v. Brown County, No. 16-3599 (7th Cir. 3/7/2018).  The FMLA provides eligible employees who have serious health conditions with the right to take unpaid leave for up to 12 workweeks during each 12 month period.  The FMLA also makes it unlawful for an employer to interfere with an employee's attempt to exercise his or her FMLA rights, or to retaliate against an employee for exercising his or her FMLA rights.

  • 7th Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment for Defendant in Age Discrimination and Retaliation Lawsuit

    On March 8, 2018, the 7th Circuit affirmed an order of summary judgment in favor the defendant in a lawsuit in which the plaintiff alleged that his former employer unlawfully discriminated against him on the basis of his age and national origin, as well as retaliated against him for complaining about a supervisor, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA") and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), by failing to promote him to various positions and ultimately demoting him.  Skiba v. Illinois Central Railroad Company, No. 17-2002 (7th Cir. 3/8/2018).  To survive a motion for summary judgment on a retaliation claim, a plaintiff must offer evidence of: (1) statutorily protected activity; (2) materially adverse job action; and (3) a causal connection between the two.  The 7th Circuit concluded that the plaintiff did not engage in any statutorily protected activity when he complained about a supervisor's harsh management style.

  • 7th Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment on Americans with Disabilities Act Lawsuit

    On February 13, 2018, the 7th Circuit affirmed an order of summary judgment in favor of the defendant in a disability discrimination lawsuit in which the plaintiff alleged that her former employer fired her because of her disability, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA").  Grussgott v. Milwaukee Jewish Day School, Inc., No. 17-2332 (7th Cir. 2/13/2018).  The defendant argued that the First Amendment's ministerial exception to employment discrimination laws, including the ADA, barred the plaintiff's lawsuit.  The district court agreed, concluding that the defendant, a Jewish day school, is a religious institution and that the role of the plaintiff as a Hebrew teacher for the school was ministerial.

  • 7th Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment on ADA Discrimination, Accommodation and Retaliation Claims

    On January 2, 2018, the 7th Circuit affirmed an order of summary judgment in favor of the defendant in a lawsuit filed under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), in which the plaintiff, a medical resident, claimed that his employer, a hospital, violated the ADA by discriminating against him because of his disability, a sleep disorder, failing to provide him with reasonable accommodation for his disability, and retaliating against him for asserting his rights under the ADA.  Rodrigo v. Carle Foundation Hospital, et al., No. 16-1403 (7th Cir. 1/2/2018).  The plaintiff contended that the hospital allowed another resident in its medical residency program to complete the program without passing the required Step 3 test, which the plaintiff did not pass, and that therefore he could establish a claim for disability discrimination under federal law.  He also argued that the hospital denied his accommodation requests that it reinstate him to the program and give him the opportunity to re-take the Step 3.  On his ADA retaliation claim, the plaintiff asserted that the hospital's termination of his residency and refusal to reinstate him were in retaliation for his protected activity of requesting reasonable accommodation.  However, the plaintiff's disability discrimination and failure to accommodate claims failed because he is not a qualified individual with a disability under the ADA.  His retaliation claim failed for lack of evidence of any causal connection between any protected activity and adverse job action.

  • 7th Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment on FMLA, ADA and Title VII Claims

    On December 27, 2017, the 7th Circuit affirmed an order of summary judgment in favor of the defendant in a lawsuit in which the plaintiff alleged that the defendant terminated his employment because of his race, national origin, disability, and exercise of his right to take leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA").  Ennin v. CNH Industrial America, LLC, No. 17-2270 (7th Cir. 12/27/2017).  The record indicated that the defendant terminated the plaintiff's employment before it had knowledge of his alleged disability or his FMLA leave; and there was no evidence that the defendant's proffered reasons for the termination were pretext for employment discrimination.

Pages

This blog is provided for general informational purposes only, does not constitute legal advice, and shall not be relied upon for any particular matter. Reading, reviewing, or otherwise using the blog shall not create any attorney-client relationship.