Eeoc-Initiated Litigation: Case Law Developments in 2011 and Trends to Watch for in 2012 Part I

By Maatman, Gerald L.; Degroff, Christopher J. | Labor Law Journal, Summer 2012 | Go to article overview

Eeoc-Initiated Litigation: Case Law Developments in 2011 and Trends to Watch for in 2012 Part I


Maatman, Gerald L., Degroff, Christopher J., Labor Law Journal


I. Motions for Summary Judgment in EEOC Pattern or Practice Cases

A.ADA Cases

I. EEOC v. CR. England, inc.1 The EEOC, on behalf of Walter Watson, a former employee of the employer, filed an action alleging discrimination and retaliation in violation of the ADA. Watson was diagnosed with HIV in 1999, and began working as a truck driver for The employer in 2002. The EEOC claimed that the employer asked the truck driver trainees to sign acknowledgements that informed them that the trainer suffered from a communicable health condition, allegedly causing Watson stress and requiring him to take a leave of absence. The EEOC argued that the acknowledgement form the employer required trainees to sign violated § 102(b)(1) of the ADA, which "prohibits discrimination by limiting, segregating, or classifying a job applicant or employee in a way that adversely affected the opportunities or status of such employees because of the disability of such applicant or employee. "2 The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and the District Court granted the employer's motion.

On appeal, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. It noted that although the employer required potential trainees to sign an acknowledgement form, it did not deny Watson the opportunity to become a trainer, demote him, or reassign him due to his HIV status. The Tenth Circuit also found no evidence that he was ever segregated from other employees or trainees. The court remarked that the mere act of disclosing Watson's HIV status in itself did not amount to an actionable claim. Accordingly, the court concluded that Watson did not suffer any adverse employment action.

The EEOC also claimed that Watson was terminated in his capacity as a trainer and as a driver, and only because he was HIVpositive.3 The court found that the reasons for the training demotion were legitimate and non-discriminatory. Among other things, the EEOC contended that because the employer had no company policy that would require the termination of a trainer, the reasons it offered were pretextual. The court, however, found no basis to conclude that an otherwise reasonable justification by an employer should be deemed pretextual merely because it was not directly reinforced by an official rule or policy. Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the reasons offered by the employer for terminating Watson as a trainer were not a pretext for discrimination.

Likewise, the court found that the EEOC failed to offer any evidence to prove that the employer's reasons for terminating Watson as a driver were a pretext for discrimination.4 The EEOC further asserted that the employer violated § 102(d) of the ADA by disclosing medical information concerning Watson's HIV-positive status to potential trainees and other employees. The employer argued that the EEOCs claim failed because § 102(d) did not apply to voluntarily disclosed medical information that was not gleaned from a medical examination or inquiry, and as such, Watson did not suffer a sufficient cognizable injury to sustain a claim under § 102 (d.)5 The Tenth Circuit agreed with both arguments. The court determined that § 102(d) governs only medical examinations and inquiries in three distinct instances, including: (i) pre-employment, (ii) post-offer; and (iii) during the employment relationship. The court noted that on its face, § 102(d) does not apply to or protect information that is voluntarily disclosed by an employee unless it is elicited during an authorized employment-related medical examination or inquiry. The parties did not dispute that Watson voluntarily disclosed that he was HIV-positive, and neither party suggested that Watson's disclosure was the result of any sort of examination or inquiry.6 Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the employer.

2. EEOC v. The Picture People, Inc.7 The EEOC filed a disability discrimination action on behalf of Jessica Chrysler, a profoundly deaf employee hired as a performer at the employer's portrait studio, a position that involved photography, sales, lab work, front desk duties, and interacting with customers. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • A full archive of books and articles related to this one
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Eeoc-Initiated Litigation: Case Law Developments in 2011 and Trends to Watch for in 2012 Part I
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

    Already a member? Log in now.