On August 27, 2018, the 7th Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a retaliation claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") for legally insufficient pleading of protected activity. Sloan v. American Brain Tumor Association, No. 18-1103 (7th Cir. 8/27/2018). The plaintiff sued her former employer for unlawful retaliation in violation of the FLSA. The district court dismissed the complaint. The 7th Circuit held that the plaintiff's allegations, even if generously construed, do not remotely support a claim that the defendant retaliated against her for asserting rights protected by the FLSA. Under federal pleading standards, a complaint must state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads facts that allow a court to draw a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.
Employment Law Chicago Blog
On August 24, 2018, the 7th Circuit reversed an order of summary judgment in favor of an employer-defendant in a lawsuit filed by an employee who claimed that the employer discriminated against her because she had a disability, failed to accommodate her disability, and retaliated against her for exercising her right to request reasonable accommodations, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Rowlands v. United Parcel Service, No. 17-3281 (7th Cir. 8/24/2018). The district court granted the employer's motion for summary judgment on all of the employee's ADA claims, finding that she did not have a disability within the meaning of the ADA, had waived her failure to accommodate claim, and failed to establish a prima facie case of ADA retaliation. The employee appealed her failure to accommodate and retaliation claims. The 7th Circuit reversed the district court, finding that there are genuine issues of fact that are material to the employee's failure to accommodate and retaliation claims, which were not waived.
On August 20, 2018, the 7th Circuit affirmed an order of summary judgment in favor of the defendant-employer in a disparate impact age discrimination lawsuit filed under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"). O'Brien, et al. v. Caterpillar, Inc., No. 17-2956 (7th Cir. 8/20/2018). This age discrimination lawsuit was filed by a group of retirement-eligible employees who refused to retire under a "liquidation plan," through which employees who agreed to retire would receive a pro rata share of funds that resulted from the company's elimination of certain unemployment benefits for laid-off employees. The plaintiffs alleged that the liquidation plan violates the ADEA because it has a disparate impact on older employees. The 7th Circuit held that although the liquidation plan has a disparate impact on older workers, it was justified by several reasonable factors other than age.
On August 16, 2018, 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"), in which the plaintiff alleged that the defendant discriminated against him, failed to provide him with a reasonable accommodation, and retaliated against him, in violation of the ADA. Koty v. DuPage County, Illinois, No. 17-3159 (7th Cir. 8/16/2018). The plaintiff, a deputy in the DuPage County Sheriff's Department, requested a different model of squad car with more legroom to accommodate a hip condition. After the Department denied his request, the plaintiff filed charges of discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), alleging that the Department had discriminated against him in violation of the ADA. Not long after that, the Department reassigned the plaintiff to courthouse duty, for which he would not need to drive a squad car. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against his employer in federal court alleging that the Department violated the ADA when it denied his request for an SUV, and unlawfully retaliated against him for filing his EEOC charge of employment discrimination by re-assigning him and taking other various employment actions against him.
On August 15, 2018, the 7th Circuit affirmed an order of summary judgment in favor of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security in a lawsuit in which a FEMA Disaster Assistance employee alleged that the Department retaliated against her for filing a discrimination grievance by not reimbursing her for the time and expenses that she incurred when she testified at the hearing of her earlier discrimination charge. Moreland v. Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, No. 17-3113 (7th Cir. 8/15/2018). The 7th Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to provide evidence that she suffered a materially adverse employment action, and did not rebut the agency's legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for not reimbursing her.
On August 14, 2018, the 7th Circuit affirmed an order of summary judgment in favor of a defendant-employer in a Title VII retaliation lawsuit filed by a Cook County correctional officer, who alleged that two County employees subjected her to unlawful racial and sexual harassment, and that division supervisors unlawfully retaliated against her for filing grievances by reassigning her to work alongside one of the alleged harassers. Emerson v. Dart, Sheriff of Cook County, Illinois, et al., No. 17-2614 (7th Cir. 8/14/2018). During the litigation, she posted a threat on a Facebook group that she would sue anyone who testified against her, for which she was sanctioned.
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.