In Roy v. Correct Care Solutions, the U.S. Court of Appeals overturned the decision of a lower court and determined that Tara Roy had presented sufficient evidence that she faced gender discrimination and hostility to bring her case for employment discrimination before a jury. Roy’s case involved many defendants, including the private company that employed her (Correct Care), the Maine Department of Corrections, and the individual supervisors who allegedly retaliated against her for complaining about sexual harassment.
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.
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.
In Webb v. City of Eufaula, a federal court in Oklahoma ruled that a female employee had offered enough facts and evidence to bring her lawsuit for gender discrimination to trial. Candy Webb was the only woman employed as a Police Officer by the City of Eufaula, and was subjected to different standards of training and fitness than other Officers. She was fired by the Police Department and filed a lawsuit.
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.
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.
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.
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.
