On September 20, 2017, the 7th Circuit held that a long-term medical leave of absence does not constitute a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Severson v. Heartland Woodcraft, Inc., No. 15-3754 (7th Cir. 9/20/2017). The plaintiff took a 12-week medical leave of absence under the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") to get medical treatment for a bad back. On the last day of his leave, he had back surgery, which required that he remain off of work for another two or three months. He requested continuation of his medical leave from his employer, the defendant, but by then he had used up all of his FMLA leave. The employer denied his request, terminated his employment, but invited him to reapply when he was medically cleared to work. Three months later, his doctor cleared him to return to work, but he did not reapply; instead, he sued the company, claiming that it had discriminated against him on the basis of his disability, in violation of the ADA, by failing to provide him with a reasonable accommodation in the form of a three-month leave of absence after his FMLA leave expired.
Employment Law Chicago Blog
On September 18, 2017, the 7th Circuit affirmed an order of summary judgment in favor of an employer in a federal lawsuit filed under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") by a transportation worker, who alleged that he was terminated on the basis of his mental disability in violation of the ADA. Monroe v. Indiana Department of Transportation, et al., No. 16-1959 (7th Cir. 9/18/2017). The plaintiff worked for the Indiana Department of Transportation for over 21 years. One of his job duties was to clean up human remains after traffic fatalities. He also witnessed the death of a co-worker in a work-related accident; and he served in combat in the Gulf War. He was discharged from employment for allegedly creating a hostile and intimidating work environment based on the investigation of a complaint against him by a group of his subordinates, who alleged that he mistreated them. During the investigation, the plaintiff disclosed that he had recently been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
On August 31, 2017, the 7th Circuit affirmed an order of summary judgment in favor of an employer in a federal lawsuit in which the plaintiff, a tenured university professor, alleged that the university discriminated against him because of his race, retaliated against him for complaining about discrimination, denied him due process of law, defamed him, and breached an employment contract created by an employee handbook. Grant v. Trustees of Indiana University, et al., No. 16-1958 (7th Cir. 8/31/2017). The question on summary judgment is whether the defendants have shown that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. On appeal, the appellate court resolves all factual disputes and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. However, he is only entitled to the benefit of inferences supported by admissible evidence, not those supported only by speculation or conjecture.
On August 31, 2017, the 7th Circuit affirmed an order of summary judgment in favor of an employer in a Title VII sex discrimination and retaliation lawsuit in which the former employee, a Human Resources Manager, alleged that her employment was terminated because of her sex, female, and in retaliation for complaining about sexual harassment. Owens v. Old Wisconsin Sausage Company, Inc., No. 16-3875 (7th Cir. 8/31/2017). The plaintiff was the only female manager. Another manager commented to her that the employer tended to be a "boys' club." After the decision terminate her employment, the employer produced a memo that listed a myriad of performance-based and other reasons for her termination.
On August 28, 2017, the 7th Circuit affirmed an order of summary judgment in favor of the defendant on an Illinois state-law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress in the employment law context. Richards v. U.S. Steel, No. 16-2436 (7th Cir. 8/28/2017). The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against her employer for sexual harassment, retaliation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The sexual harassment and retaliation claims were dismissed based on timeliness grounds prior to this appeal. The issue on appeal was whether the claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress failed as a matter of law based on preemption by the Illinois Human Rights Act ("IHRA") and on substantive grounds. The case involved various incidents of workplace and sexual harassment. The IHRA provides that no court shall have jurisdiction over the subject of an alleged civil rights violation other than as set forth in the IHRA, which means that jurisdiction is limited to the claims enumerated in the IHRA.
On August 25, 2017, the 7th Circuit affirmed an order of summary judgment in favor of the defendant in a race discrimination lawsuit under the Illinois Human Rights Act ("IHRA"). Reed v. Freedom Mortgage Corporation, No. 16-3661 (7th Cir. 8/25/2017). The plaintiff, a broker liaison, had been given verbal and written warnings for violations of the defendant's attendance policy, after which he committed further violations. He was subsequently selected for elimination in a reduction-in-force because of a history of attendance and disciplinary problems and lack of seniority. The remaining broker liaisons were eventually terminated, and the office was later closed.
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.