Employment Law Chicago Blog

On February 7, 2020, the 7th Circuit affirmed the district court's order of summary judgment in favor of the employer-defendant in a Title VII retaliation lawsuit in which the plaintiff alleged retaliation for complaining about discrimination in the workplace.  Robertson v. State of Wisconsin Department of Health Services, et al., No. 19-1179 (7th Cir. Feb. 7, 2020).  The plaintiff's retaliation claim failed due to lack of evidence of a causal connection between her protected activity--reporting discrimination--and the defendant's decision to not promote her, and because she did not establish that she suffered an adverse job action.

On February 6, 2020, the Illinois Appellate Court, First District, affirmed the trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant-employer in a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the Plaintiff, a manager of a federal government youth-wellness facility, under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the Illinois Human Rights Act ("IHRA").  Fox v. Adams and Associates, et al., 2020 IL App (1st) 182470 (February 6, 2020).  The Plaintiff was involved in an automobile accident that caused injuries requiring prolonged leaves of absence.  The trial court found: (1) that the Plaintiff was not a qualified individual with a disability; (2) that there was no genuine issue of material fact that she could not perform the essential functions of her job due to her disability; and (3) the employer terminated her employment due to her medical inability to work.  On appeal, the Plaintiff argued that she was a qualified individual with a disability because her request for a multi-month leave of absence was not unreasonable, and that she did not request an indefinite amount of time for her leave of absence.

On January 24, 2020, the 7th Circuit affirmed an order of summary judgment in favor of a defendant-employer in a lawsuit filed under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA").  Youngman v. Peoria County, No. 18-2544 (7th Cir. Jan. 24, 2020).  The plaintiff was placed on medical leave after he informed his supervisor that he could no longer work shifts in the control room.  When changes in job rotations had resulted in his temporary assignment to the control room, he experienced various symptoms.  He requested that he not be assigned to the control room in the future as a reasonable accommodation, but was informed that was not possible.  He was instructed that he could return to work if and when his condition improved.  After his leave time expired, his position was filled, and he filed a lawsuit under the ADA, alleging that the defendant had refused to accommodate his disability and forced him out of his position.  The district court granted summary judgment for the defendant on the ground that the plaintiff was responsible for the breakdown of the interactive process required by the ADA when an employee requests an accommodation.  The 7th Circuit affirmed, but on a different ground.

On January 3, 2020, the 7th Circuit affirmed the district court's order granting a defendant-employer's motion for summary judgment in a Title VII race discrimination failure-to-promote lawsuit.  Barnes v. Board of Trustees Of The University of Illinois, et al., No. 19-1781 (7th Cir. Jan. 3, 2020).  The plaintiff filed a federal lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII") after an administrator of the defendant-employer promoted a white applicant instead of the plaintiff, who is African-American.  The 7th Circuit affirmed the district court's order of summary judgment because the plaintiff did not present evidence that the administrator's stated reason for selecting the white applicant was pretext for unlawful racial discrimination.

On December 30, 2019, the Illinois Appellate Court, Second District, issued an opinion that discussed the circuit court's ruling that an employee confidentiality provision contained in an employment agreement was overly broad in scope and therefore unenforceable.  Indeck Energy Services, Inc. v. DePodesta, et al., 2019 IL App (2d) 190043 (Dec. 30, 2019).  The plaintiff-employer filed a lawsuit against former employees for breach of their employment contracts and for injunctive relief to enforce its confidentiality and noncompetition agreements.  After a bench trial, the trial court directed a finding in the defendants' favor, finding, among other things, that the confidentiality agreement was void and unenforceable.

On December 4, 2019, the 7th Circuit held that a jury verdict in favor of a defendant-employer in a disability discrimination lawsuit under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.  Stegall v. Saul, Commissioner of Social Security, No. 18-2345 (7th Cir. Dec. 4, 2019).  The plaintiff claimed that after she interviewed for a position, she received an offer of employment from the defendant at the end of her interview.  She also claimed that when and because she subsequently disclosed her physical and mental disabilities, the defendant rescinded the offer of employment in violation of the ADA.  She filed claims of disability and race discrimination in federal court.  After a trial, the jury found that the plaintiff had a disability, that the defendant regarded her as having a disability, and that the defendant failed to hire the plaintiff.  However, the jury also found that even without her physical disability, the plaintiff would not have been hired; and that her non-hiring was not unlawfully motivated based on her disabilities.