From: FindLaw Opinion Summaries - Labor Law
(U.S. 7th Cir., Civil Procedure, Civil Rights, Health Law, Labor
& Employment Law, Sanctions) In plaintiff's disability
discrimination action against his former employer, district court's
grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant-employer is
affirmed in part, reversed and vacated in part, and remanded where:
1) the disability-discrimination claim is remanded as, although
plaintiff's impairments are not sufficient to show that he is
disabled, the record contains adequate evidence to support a theory
that defendant regarded him as being disabled in the major life
activities of walking, caring for himself, and speaking; 2)
district court's summary judgment on the reasonable-accommodation
claim is affirmed; 3) district court's denial of plaintiff's motion
to compel discovery on certa...
Respond to this topic on your own blog
Click and press Ctrl+C to copy and paste this discussion on your blog or site
Related Articles
LaFary v. Rogers Group, Inc.
(U.S. 7th Cir., Civil Procedure, Civil Rights, Labor &
Employment Law) In plaintiff's suit against her former employer for
age and sex discrimination and retaliation after she was let go for
taking more than six months of leave necessitated by complications
with her pregnancy, district court's grant of defendant's motion
for summary judgment on all counts is affirmed where: 1) district
court properly granted motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's
claim that a transfer was motivated by pregnancy discrimination as
she has not presented evidence that would support a finding that
her employer knew that she was pregnant when he decided the
transfer; and 2) plaintiff's evidence falls short of raising a
genuine issue of fact on her claim that defendant's decisions to
terminate her employment ...
Velez v. Thermo King De Puerto Rico, Inc.
(U.S. 1st Cir., Civil Rights, Labor & Employment Law) In
plaintiff's age discrimination suit against his former employer,
district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant is
vacated and remanded as, under the three stage burden shifting
framework set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S.
792 (1973), several aspects of the evidence, taken together, are
more than sufficient to support a factfinder's conclusion that
defendant was motivated by age-based discrimination, thus raising a
genuine issue of material fact that defeats summary judgment.
Ekstrand v. Sch. Dist. of Somerset
(U.S. 7th Cir., Civil Rights, Education Law, Government Law, Health
Law, Labor & Employment Law) In plaintiff's lawsuit against her
former employer claiming that school district failed to accommodate
her seasonal effective disorder and constructively discharged her
in violation of the ADA, judgment of the district court is reversed
in part and affirmed in part where: 1) district court's grant of
summary judgment on the failure-to-accommodate claim is reversed as
plaintiff satisfied all three elements required for the claim; and
2) summary judgment on the constructive-discharge claim was proper
as plaintiff failed to show that the conditions of her employment
even approached the intolerable levels normally required in
constructive-discharge cases.
Senske v. Sybase, Inc.
(U.S. 7th Cir., Civil Rights, Labor & Employment Law) In
plaintiff's age discrimination lawsuit against his former employer,
district court's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment
is affirmed as no reasonable jury could find that plaintiff's age
was the real reason behind his termination, rather than his
performance deficiencies.
Stephens v. Erickson
(U.S. 7th Cir., Civil Rights, Labor & Employment Law) In an
action for employment discrimination and retaliation, district
court's grant of summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where:
1) plaintiff failed to produce enough evidence to support an
inference that defendant's failure to promote was in retaliation
for his protected activity; 2) the alterations to plaintiff's job
were not materially adverse and insufficient to dissuade a
reasonable employee from filing a discrimination charge; and 3) the
court properly determined that certain comments made by other
employees were either hearsay or irrelevant to the issue of whether
plaintiff was terminated for a retaliatory purpose.
