In Gloetzner v. Lynch, a U.S. Deputy Marshall brought a suit alleging age discrimination under the ADEA against the U.S. Department of Justice. Marshall brought a number of claims of discriminatory treatment but all but one were all dismissed as having been brought too late. The one claim that the Court did not dismiss as timebarred was Marshall’s claim that he applied to be able to attend a firearms training session but was passed over in favor of a younger colleague. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida granted the defendants motion for summary judgement, holding that the Marshall had not stated a meritorious claim on this.
In Peeples v. City of Detroit, eleven firefighters brought a lawsuit against the City and their Union, arguing that they were laid off for racially discriminatory reasons. The firefighters had been improperly laid off due to a misreading of the CBA by the City. When the firefighter’s Union notified the City of its mistake, the firefighters were reinstated. However, they argue that the decision to lay them off resulted not from a contract dispute, but from racial animus. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed their claims against both the City and the Union.
In Volker v. County of Nassau, a County fired an Affirmative Action Specialist after alleging he engaged in activity that the County said was outside the scope of his employment. He had submitted a report to his employer, a Sheriff’s Department, detailing the work that the Department needed to do in order to comply with Affirmative Action guidelines. The Department argued that in making the report, he had violated several policies, including interviewing employees without representation present, and proceeded to fire him. He then sued the Department, alleging that his termination had been in retaliation for protected activity. The Department moved for summary judgement, which the U.S. Federal Court for the Eastern District of New York denied.
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.
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.
In Williams v. Office of Chief Judge of Cook Cnty., a former African American juvenile probation officer in Illinois, sued her department for racial discrimination and workers compensation retaliation after she was terminated while on medical leave. The department argued that the decision was based on its belief that the officer had abandoned her job. The Seventh Circuit upheld the lower court’s decision, and granted the department summary judgment on both claims.
In Valdes v. City of Doral, a former police officer alleged he had been unlawfully terminated after his job restrictions prohibited him from patrolling the streets. The city argued that it was necessary for an officer to be able to patrol the streets and therefore the officer was no longer qualified for his job. The Eleventh Circuit upheld the lower court’s ruling and dismissed the officer’s claims.
In United States v. Woody, a former deputy sheriff was unable to perform her job after being diagnosed with a heart condition and asked for a transfer to a different position. A position opened but the deputy sheriff was not the most qualified applicant and did not receive the job. The deputy sheriff sued and alleged that she had been discriminated against because of her disability. A United States District Court in Virginia disagreed and dismissed the sheriff’s lawsuit.
In Koenig v. City of New Haven, a disabled police officer alleged he had been discriminated against after he was suspended with pay following racist and sexist remarks he allegedly made. The city argued that the suspension was not an adverse employment action and, even if it were, it was not done because of the officer’s disability. A United States District Court in Connecticut found the suspension was an adverse action, but that there was no evidence to show that the City suspended the officer because of his disability. The Court dismissed the officer’s claims.
In Gardner v. Univ. of Conn. Health Ctr., a correctional facility social worker in Connecticut was terminated after she suffered a seizure while on duty and alone with an inmate. The social worker argued that the termination was discriminatory and that the risk of day time seizures was low with medication. A United States District Court in Connecticut disagreed and held that the potential harm from another seizure was too great and therefore her termination was lawful.
