The Federal 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, in Desarduoin v. City of Rochester, 117 FEP Cases 778 (2d Cir. 2013) reestablished a fired female police security officer’s sexual harassment/discrimination claim against the City of Rochester, New York under Title VII, while affirming the dismissal of her retaliation and state law claims.
In Keseker v. Marin Community College District (27 AD Cases 421 (N.D. Cal. 2012)), the California Federal District Court refused to dismiss a lawsuit brought by a former police officer who claimed he was unfairly forced to retire because of an anxiety disorder that made him not fit for duty. He claimed the employer violated the ADA in failing to provide him with reasonable accommodations, failing to engage in the interactive process, wrongful termination, and discriminating against him based on his disability.
In Wardia v. Justice & Pub. Safety Cabinet Dep't of Juvenile Justice, (27 AD Case 385 (6th Cir. 2013), the Sixth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals granted summary judgment on a failure to accommodate claim of a former juvenile detention worker who was physically unable to perform a restraint on an inmate.
In Hall v. Village of Flossmoor Police Department (116 FEP Cases 1209), an Illinois Federal Court threw out the lawsuit of a School Liaison officer who was fired after an admitted sexual relationship with an 18 year-old, recently graduated student. The officer ultimately admitted that it occurred and had included sex in the Department vehicle. The court determined his claim that his race played a role in the termination could not survive summary judgment when the evidence of misconduct was so apparent.
In Kosek v. Luzerne County (116 FEP Cases 1244 (M.D. Pa. 2012)), the court denied the County’s summary judgment motion concerning a discrimination lawsuit brought by a Corrections Counselor. The Officer claimed that the County had failed to promote the most qualified candidate for discriminatory reasons, and, although later corrected its action, did so only after the Correction Counselor had filed a grievance and separate lawsuit.
In Zagaja v. Village of Freeport (116 FEP Cases 1227), the plaintiff’s claims of race and gender discrimination, survived summary judgment when she pleaded sufficient facts to indicate that the Mayor’s hiring of minority and male candidates (and demotion of herself), was based on race, and any other reasons were pretextual.
In Dove v. Community Education Centers, a Pennsylvania federal district court held that a terminated corrections officer could proceed with his retaliation claim, when he was terminated after he had requested leave for his symptoms of depression. The court also upheld an interference claim against the employer for not informing him of his available FMLA leave. While the court was not deciding the merits of the claims, it was deciding, upon a summary judgment motion, whether the claims were sufficient to proceed to a trial.
The Seventh Circuit recently found, in Porter v. City of Chicago, that an offer to work a later shift so an employee could still attend her morning church service was a reasonable accommodation. Although the employee wished to have all of Sunday off and was not willing to work the later shift, the Seventh Circuit found, that did not make the employer’s offer unreasonable.
A trooper who complained numerous times of disparate treatment, filed suit after his eventual termination, claiming his employer violated Title VII by discriminating and retaliating against him due to his race. In Reaves v. Pennsylvania State Police, the Pennsylvania District Court found, “although the evidence [was] rather tenuous,” enough material dispute of fact existed for the trooper’s retaliation claim to survive summary judgment and go to the jury. The trooper’s other Title VII claim – for discrimination – lacked sufficient evidence and was rejected as a matter of law.
In Fossesigurani v. City of Bridgeport Fire Dept., the Connecticut Federal Court dismissed an assistant city fire chief’s American with Disabilities Act claims, arising from a fire commissioner’s allegedly derogatory comment. The court found the comment alone was insufficient proof of an adverse employment action, or a hostile work environment under the ADA.
