|
|
|
ILLINOIS CIRCUIT COURT CASES |
|
Racicot v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. No. 04-2733 July 5, 2005 Employment Discrimination: District court did not err in granting defendant-employer’s motion for summary judgment in plaintiff-employee’s Title VII action alleging that plaintiff was sexually harassed by two co-workers who cursed at plaintiff and occasionally used vulgar language in her presence; alleged actions by co-workers were insufficient to rise to level of actionable harassment given that limited number incidents more reflected “run of the mill” nature of uncouth behavior rather than atmosphere permeated with discriminatory ridicule. Moreover, plaintiff failed to demonstrate any actionable retaliation where plaintiff neglected to present evidence to counter defendant’s explanation that plaintiff was terminated due to incidents that involved holding back of food or selling food at improperly discounted prices. Jackson v. City of Chicago No. 03-4266 July 13, 2005 Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-employer’s motion for summary judgment in ADA action alleging that defendant essentially terminated plaintiff-police officer by refusing to reinstate her from her medical leave on account of her disability; record supported defendant’s claim that plaintiff was not “qualified” individual with disability since plaintiff could not show that she could perform essential function of her job (i.e., safely handle firearm) with or without reasonable accommodation. Ct. also rejected plaintiff’s argument that defendant failed to fully engage in interactive process associated with identifying reasonable accommodations after finding that plaintiff was responsible for breakdown in interactive process in that plaintiff knew of defendant’s willingness to engage in interactive process, and yet withheld specifics about her own limitations. Mohanty v. St. John Heart Clinic No 1-04-0638 June 30, 2005 Trial court erred when it dismissed preliminary injunction issued in favor of heart clinic for five years and three years and within two miles of corporate offices finding that the restriction against entire practice of medicine was unreasonable. Physicians are not limited to practice in their specialty, having license to practice medicine in all its forms, and restrictions will not limit their ability to make livelihood in greater Chicago Marketplace. A decision as to whether the employer’s breach of employment contract voided the covenants must wait for a trial on the merits. Culver v. Gorman & Co. No 04-3442 July 20, 2005 Dist. Ct. erred in granting defendant-employer’s motion for summary judgment in Title VII action alleging that defendant retaliated against plaintiff-employee by terminating her 3 days after threatening to file gender discrimination charge or see lawyer about same; while defendant presented evidence of attitude change in plaintiff as reason for termination, material fact existed as to whether plaintiff’s alleged insubordinate attitude was reason for her termination where: (1) plaintiff had recent favorable performance evaluation; (2) plaintiff was terminated shortly after her complaint of gender discrimination; (3) plaintiff’s supervisor became dissatisfied with plaintiff’s performance only after plaintiff registered discrimination complaint; and (4) plaintiff’s supervisor failed to mention plaintiff’s alleged insubordination at time of her termination or at time of supervisor’s deposition in instant action. Karraker v. Rent-A-Center No 04-2881 June 14, 2005 The case involved three brothers in Illinois- Steven, Michael and Christopher Karraker- who were seeking promotions at Rent-A-Canter, a chain of rental stores where they worked. The company required candidates for promotion to take a management profile, a series of test that included the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. The MMPI often is used to help diagnose certain psychiatric disorders. When the brothers did not score well enough to gain promotions, they sued Rent-A-Center, on grounds that the company’s use of MMPI violated the ADA’s general prohibition against using “medical test” that tend to screen out people with disabilities. Harrell v. United States Postal Service No 03-4204 July 19, 2005 Dist. Ct. erred in granting defendant-employer’s motion for summary judgment in action alleging that defendant employer violated FMLA by requiring plaintiff-employee to submit to medical examination by defendant’s physician prior to allowing plaintiff to return to work. FMLA requires that employer rely on evaluation of employee’s own health care provider, and any return-to-work certification need not contain specific information regarding diagnosis, treatment and medication. However, employer could apply uniform, more stringent fit-for-duty examination once employee has returned for FMLA leave so long as such examination is job-related and is consistent with ADA guidelines. But, the Court held that the Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment in FMLA claim under 29 USC §2615 9a) (1) alleging that defendant improperly contacted plaintiff’s treating physician without plaintiff’s consent; while defendant could not contact said physician, plaintiff failed to establish any damages where plaintiff’s physician refused to release any medical information absent plaintiff’s consent. Isbell v. Allstate Insurance Co. Nos. 04-2310 & 04-2365 August 15, 2005 Dist. Ct, did not err in granting defendant-employer’s motion for summary judgment in action under ADEA and Title VII alleging that defendant terminated the plaintiffs’ insurance agent positions and offered plaintiffs, among other things, independent contractor jobs on account of their age. The Court held that the plaintiffs’ terminations were part of a company-wide plan to restructure defendant’s relationship with its 6,400 agents based on the perception that independent contractors would produce more customers, and that all of its agents, regardless of age, received the same options. The Court also rejected the plaintiffs’ claim that the decision was motivated by studies linking age and lack of productivity since there was no evidence that decision-makers used said studies when making termination decisions. |