By Cynthia McNabb and Kim Lowe
In Neal v. Indianapolis Fire Department, a District Court judge ruled that there was no merit to a claim by a former employee that he was discriminated against on the basis of his disability when he was terminated for poor attendance.
By Jim Cline and Mark Anderson
In Frost v. City of Philadelphia, a Philadelphia court denied a trial for Plaintiff Frost’s claims that the City discriminated against him by refusing to admit him to the Fire Academy and then firing him because of his disability.
By Mark Anderson and Beth Touschner
In Anselmo v. City of Philadelphia, a city police officer brought a lawsuit against her employer alleging she was retaliated against by coworkers after she reported gender discrimination. Specifically, Anselmo claimed, after she reported discrimination she was ostracized, lost friends at work, was not invited to social gatherings, coworkers would not sit near her, she was excluded when lunch was ordered, and one of her coworkers called her a rat. The court rejected her retaliation claim because Anselmo failed to show that the employer knew of the harassment and failed to stop it. Indeed, the court noted, Anselmo admitted she had not reported her allegations to anyone and had simply withdrawn.
By: Loyd Willaford and Matt Baker
In Itzhaki v. Port Auth. of N.Y & N.J., a port authority public safety officer claimed that she was discriminated against on the basis of an injury sustained at work. The officer alleged that she would have been promoted to sergeant but for her injury. The Port Authority moved for summary judgement and argued that her injury precluded her from being on the job and therefore that she couldn’t perform the essential functions of the job. The U.S. Federal Court for the Southern District of New York agreed and granted the Port Authority’s motion.
By: Cynthia McNabb and Clive Pontusson
In Reeder v. Carter, a recruit with the Indiana State Patrol brought suit in federal district court alleging that he had been discriminated against on account of his disability. Dillon Reeder had begun the ISP Recruit Academy and performed well, but was diagnosed with Diabetes and had to be hospitalized. During his treatment, the State Patrol made efforts to accommodate his condition, including special meals and reduced physical activity. However, the Patrol believed that Reeder could not complete the training program. Further, Reeder did not complete all of the coursework as part of the training program while he was in the hospital and when he was released from the hospital but not allowed to perform full-duty physical activities. As a result, Reeder was dismissed from the Academy. He was given the option of attending the Academy the following year, and also given the option of accepting a civilian job with the Patrol as a dispatcher. Reeder refused both offers. He filed a lawsuit under the Americans with Disabilities Act, claiming that the State Patrol had not done enough to accommodate his condition. The court disagreed, and found that the Patrol had done everything required by the law to attempt to accommodate Reeder’s disability. The court therefore dismissed Reeder’s lawsuit.
By: Cynthia McNabb and Clive Pontusson
In a case that was decided on summary judgment, the federal court for the Northern District of Illinois ruled that the City of Chicago did not fail to accommodate or discriminate against Plaintiff, a fire paramedic in violation of the Americans with Disability Act (ADA). Specifically, the Court ruled that the Plaintiff, a fire paramedic with chronic Bell’s palsy employed by the City of Chicago, had failed to show that discrimination was the cause of her being sent to three fit-for-duty evaluations and being placed on involuntary leave.
By: Cynthia McNabb and Clive Pontusson
In Jeannot v. Philadelphia Housing Authority, a federal court in Pennsylvania dismissed the lawsuit of a Police Officer who sued his employer under the Americans with Disabilities Act for retaliating against him because he had a disability. The Court dismissed Jeannot’s lawsuit because he did not prove that he had a disability that would qualify for protection under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Jeffrey Jeannot had been a Police Officer with the Philadelphia Housing Authority for several years. While on patrol with another Officer, Jeannot stopped into a pharmacy to fill a prescription for Adderall. Jeannot was prescribed Adderall by his doctor “so that he could maintain focus necessary for him to perform his duties as a police officer.” Jeannot had previously informed his supervisor that he took Adderall, however had not articulated to his supervisor that such use was for a specific medical condition. Jeannot had also not requested any form of accommodation under the ADA Later, Jeannot’s superiors apparently became suspicious, and required him to submit to a drug test. Jeannot was then suspended from his job for drug use. He filed a lawsuit under the Americans with Disabilities Act. He argued that his concentration issues were a condition that qualified as a disability, that he was nevertheless qualified to be a police officer, and that his employer suspended him because he was disabled. [Read more…]
By: Loyd Willaford and Clive Pontusson
In Montoya v. Morgan, a female employee of a Florida Sheriff’s Department filed a lawsuit for gender discrimination in violation of federal law. Laura Montoya argued that widespread sexism in the Sheriff’s department created a hostile work environment and that she was wrongfully discharged because of gender bias in the Sheriff’s Department. The Court ruled that she had not proven that she suffered from a hostile work environment. However, based on the facts presented, the Court determined that gender discrimination could have been a part of her employer’s decision to fire her. As a result, that component of her lawsuit was allowed to continue.
By: Loyd Willaford and Sarah Burke
In Freelain v. Village of Oak Park, an Illinois police officer who requested leave to take care of his sick wife, and after he developed migraine headaches, sued his department for retaliation under the ADA and FMLA. The department argued that the actions the officer was complaining about were administrative errors that it had corrected. A United States District Court in Illinois agreed with the department and dismissed the officer’s claims.
By: Loyd Willaford and Mathias Deeg
In Cook v. City of Philadelphia, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that Philadelphia’s required psychological exam for police officer applicants was valid and non-discriminatory, and that a failed exam with no further evidence could not be used as the basis for an employment discrimination claim under the Rehabilitation Act or the Americans with Disabilities Act.
