Employment Law Observer

Seven years after the Supreme Court's decision in Young v. UPS articulated the legal standard required to establish intentional discrimination in the context of pregnancy discrimination, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit unanimously affirmed summary judgment in favor of the employer and its light duty policy, which was limited only to employees injured on the job. If you initially scratched your head and wondered how such a decision could be reached post-Young, we'll help unpack the apparent discrepancy.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has issued another ruling regarding an obesity-related disability accommodation request under the American with Disabilities Act (ADA). Earlier this past summer, we reported on another Seventh Circuit case, in which the court held that obesity is not an ADA-protected disability unless it is caused by a physiological disorder or condition. In Ronald Shell v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company, the Seventh Circuit reversed a district court's decision, and ruled that an obese applicant for a safety-sensitive position—who was not hired due to his obesity—cannot claim discrimination under the "regarded as" prong of the ADA.

If you do not like your boss, can you demand your employer provide you with a new one? A federal district court in Montana recently rejected such an accommodation request in a well-reasoned case involving the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and related state law. While the court did not rule out the requested accommodation as unreasonable as a matter of law, it did find the request was not appropriate under the facts of the case.

After considerable anticipation, the U.S. Supreme Court today agreed to hear three cases involving questions of whether Title VII's prohibition against sex discrimination encompasses discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

In a split decision, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held en banc that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act's (ADEA) protections against disparate impact age discrimination do not extend to applicants. Rather, they apply only to employees.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently determined that an Illinois Sheriff’s Department did not violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by declining to provide a deputy his requested accommodation, an SUV, and instead transferring him to a position that did not require driving. The deputy had alleged the Department’s failed to accommodate him by refusing to provide him with an SUV, then retaliated against him by transferring him to a courthouse duty position.

Too often, we think of Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) claims in terms of discrimination and failure to accommodate. Employment lawyers typically see interference claims in the context of other employment statutes, such as the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”). However, the ADA also includes a provision prohibiting interference. It is unlawful for an employer to “coerce, intimidate, threaten or interfere with any individual in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of his or her having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of his or her having aided or encouraged any other individual in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected by the ADA.” 

Last week the Seventh Circuit dealt a blow to the EEOC's continued position that medical leave is a reasonable accommodation when the leave is (1) of a definite, time-limited duration; (2) re-quested in advance; and (3) likely to enable the employee to perform the essential job functions upon return. The panel rejected that position, noting it glossed over the length of the requested leave, improperly transforming the ADA into "an open-ended extension of the FMLA."