In Wilkie v. Luzerne Cnty., a former Pennsylvania 911 dispatcher was terminated after he failed to follow procedure and a caller died. The dispatcher had suffered from anxiety and alleged he was terminated due to his disability, and not for his failure to follow procedure. A United States District Court in Pennsylvania agreed, and held the dispatcher could pursue his claims against the County.
In Watt v. Brown County, a former 911 operator in Wisconsin was terminated following an injury to her rotator cuff. The operator sued, alleging she had been terminated in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The County stated her termination was due to her exhaustion of short term disability and that the operator could no longer perform the essential duties of her job. The district court held that the operator could move forward with her claims against the County.
In Wilson v. Gaston County, the U. S. District Court of North Carolina dismissed a discharged a Paramedic’s ADA discrimination and retaliation claims against Gaston County, where she could not show that her termination was discriminatory and that the County failed to respond appropriately to sexually harassing conduct she experienced from another employee.
In Moore v. Mancuso, the U. S. District Court of Louisiana dismissed a Calcasieu Parish Sheriff's Office (CPSO) deputy’s claim that the CPSO did not accommodate his disability.
In Kirincich v. Ill. State Police, a former Illinois state trooper argued she was wrongfully terminated after she suffered a diabetic episode on duty and crashed her patrol car. A federal district court in Illinois disagreed, finding that the trooper could no longer perform the essential functions of her job and the department had fulfilled its duty to accommodate her disability.
In Coleman-Askew v. King County, a King County female corrections officer alleged she was sexually harassed after her supervisor, Captain Hardy, followed her to the gym and made comments about how she “looked good for her age.” The corrections officer sued, alleging these comments caused her to request a transfer to a different department and resulted in a loss of workplace benefits. The department alleged these comments were not sexual in nature and therefore did not constitute sexual harassment. The United States District Court in Western Washington agreed with the officer and found that she could pursue her claims against the department. The District Court did dismiss some of the officer’s claims, specifically those against Captain Hardy’s supervisor.
In Caines v. City of New York, a former NYPD police officer and National Guard reservist alleged the department had illegally discriminated against him after he took military leave. The Second Circuit found that because the officer never experienced any negative actions due to his military status he could not successfully pursue his claim.
In Taylor v. City of Shreveport, a group of Shreveport, Louisiana police officers sued their Shreveport Police Department (“SPD”) after they were required to submit detailed doctor’s notes after two days of sick leave. The SPD countered that the policy was necessary to determine fitness for duty. The District Court ruled that a jury could find that the policy was overly-broad and the SPD did not have a valid business reason to require it.
In Pasqualetti v. Unified Gov't of Athens-Clarke County, the U.S. District Court of Georgia dismissed a former police officer’s claims that the Athens-Clarke County Police Department discriminated against him based on its perception that he suffered from a mental disability and that the Department retaliated against him when he filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
In Cortazzo v. City of Reading, the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled that a Reading police officer’s “stress leave” did not qualify as a declared disability under the Rehabilitation Act. The Court also ruled that by maintaining disciplinary actions already in place, the City did not engage in any adverse employment actions in response to the officer’s leave.
