Employment Law Chicago Blog

  • 7th Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment on ADA Disability Discrimination, Failure to Accommodate, and Retaliation Claims

    On January 25, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed an order of summary judgment in favor of an employer-defendant in a lawsuit filed in federal court under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA").  Scheidler v. State of Indiana, No. 17-2543 (7th Cir. Jan. 25, 2019).  The plaintiff alleged that the defendant failed to provide her with a reasonable accommodation for her disability and terminated her employment because of her disability, in violation of the ADA.  She also alleged that her employment was terminated in retaliation for opposing disability discrimination and sex discrimination, in violation of the ADA and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII").  The ADA prohibits certain types of disability discrimination.  The ADA provides that "[N]o covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of disability in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment."

  • 7th Circuit Holds that ADEA Protections Against Disparate Impact Age Discrimination Do Not Extend to Outside Job Applicants

    On January 23, 2019, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that the protections against disparate impact age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA") do not extend to outside job applicants.  Kleber v. Carefusion Corp., No. 17-1206 (7th Cir. Jan. 23, 2019).  This age discrimination case was filed by a 58-year-old attorney who applied for and was denied a position as an in-house attorney, which was given to a 29-year-old applicant.  The job description required 3-7 years, but no more than 7 years, of legal experience.  Section 4(a)(2) of the ADEA makes it unlawful for an employer to "limit, segregate or classify employees based on age" in such a way that results in an adverse effect on their "status as an employee."  The plain statutory language of the ADEA warrants the conclusion that its protections against disparate impact age discrimination are limited to employees.

  • 7th Circuit States the Elements of a Sexual Harassment Claim

    On December 26, 2018, the 7th Circuit affirmed an order of summary judgment for the defendant-employer in a sexual harassment lawsuit in which the plaintiff-former employee alleged that she was subjected to unlawful sexual harassment, sex discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII").  Swyear v. Fare Foods Corporation, No. 18-2108 (7th Cir. 12/26/2018).  The sexual harassment claim was based on offensive nicknames used by employees for co-workers and customers, but not for the plaintiff, and a business trip incident with a co-worker involving inappropriate behavior by the co-worker.  The plaintiff reported the incident to management and subsequently was given two negative performance reviews and fired.  In its decision, the 7th Circuit discussed the elements and legal standards for sexual harassment claims.

  • 7th Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment in Age Discrimination Lawsuit

    On December 18, 2018, the 7th Circuit affirmed an order of summary judgment in favor of the defendant-employer in an age discrimination lawsuit filed under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA").  Wrolstad v. CUNA Mutual Insurance Society, No. 17-1920 (7th Cir. 12/18/2018).  The plaintiff was employed by the defendant for 25 years.  His position was eliminated in a corporate restructuring, when he was 52-years-old.  He applied for several open positions, but was not rehired.  One particular position for which he had applied was given to a 23-year-old.  He signed a severance agreement waiving all claims against the defendant in exchange for 50 weeks of severance pay.  Subsequently, he filed a charge of age discrimination with the EEOC.

  • 7th Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment on Title VII Sex Discrimination and Retaliation Claims

    On December 14, 2018, the 7th Circuit affirmed an order of summary judgment in favor of a defendant-employer in a Title VII sex discrimination and retaliation lawsuit.  Terry v. Gary Community School Corporation, No. 18-1270 (7th Cir. 12/14/2018).  The plaintiff worked as a teacher and a Principal for thirty-five years.  The defendant closed the elementary school where the plaintiff had served as Principal due to declining enrollment, and reassigned her to serve as the Assistant Principal at another elementary school.  She considered this a demotion.  In addition, the defendant also selected a male employee over the plaintiff for a separate promotion, even though the plaintiff had earned the highest ranking of all the applicants from the interviewers.  In her lawsuit, the plaintiff alleged sex discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII").

  • Illinois Appellate Court Declines to Establish Per Se Standard of Reasonableness for the Temporal Scope of Employment-Based Noncompetition and Non-Solicitation Agreements.

    On December 11, 2018, the Illinois Appellate Court, Third District, declined to establish a per se standard of reasonableness for the temporal scope of employment-based restrictive covenants, indicating that reasonableness must be determined based upon the totality of the facts and circumstances of each individual case.  Pam's Academy of Dance/Forte Arts Center v. Marik, 2018 IL App (3d) 170803 (12/11/2018).  In this case, the plaintiff alleged two counts of breach of an employment contract and a third count for breach of the Illinois Trade Secrets Act.  The plaintiff alleged that the defendant, a former employee, breached their employment non-disclosure and restrictive covenant agreement by opening a dance studio within 25 miles of the plaintiff's studio and soliciting students and teachers through an improperly-obtained customer list.


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.