pain medication was the reason for the decision. Shortly thereafter, Ebert accepted another job offer, but that position was postponed indefinitely due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In the meantime, the defendant hired another candidate, Rosalee Sharnetsky, for the same position. The defendant subsequently closed its tax department and the office to which Ebert applied for employment. Following discovery, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, and the court denied the motion. First, the defendant argued that the EEOC’s request for injunctive relief was moot, due to the closure of its Washington office and changes to its anti- discrimination policies. However, the court found that the defendant had not sufficiently demonstrated that future discrimination was unlikely, as the defendant’s drug testing policies still applied to all applicants, including remote employees. The court also rejected the defendant’s argument that changes in its policies since 2020 precluded future violations. In addition, the defendant argued that Ebert’s disability was not the "but-for" cause of her not being hired, as the company had hired another disabled candidate, Sharnetsky, around the same time. Id. at *11. The court determined that there was a factual dispute over whether the decision to hire Sharnetsky was influenced by her disability, such that summary judgment was not appropriate. The defendant also sought to dismiss the availability of punitive damages, arguing that there was no evidence of "malice or reckless indifference" in its conduct. Id. at *14. The court, however, reasoned that there was enough evidence to suggest that the defendant may have attempted to cover up discriminatory actions or failed to implement proper training on anti-discrimination policies. This raised a factual issue about whether the defendant acted with reckless indifference to Ebert’s rights, which the court concluded should be decided by a jury. Finally, the defendant also argued that Ebert should not be entitled to back pay because she accepted another job offer before learning that she was not hired. The court disagreed. It held that there were no reasons to deny back pay. For these reasons, the court denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. In EEOC v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118841 (D. Minn. July 8, 2024), the EEOC filed an action against Union Pacific Railroad Co. (Union Pacific) on behalf of a group of railroad conductors alleging that its policy of requiring light-cannoning testing was discriminatory in violation of the ADA. Union Pacific moved to dismiss the EEOC’s action, and the court denied the motion. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) sets safety standards for railroad employees, including certification requirements such as passing a color-vision test. There are twelve color-vision tests approved by the FRA for use by railroads to determine whether an individual can identify railroad signals’ colors in an adequate manner. Union Pacific required its engineers and conductors to take two visual-acuity tests, including the Ishihara test, which was accepted by FRA, and Union Pacific’s own developed “light cannon” test, which was not accepted by FRA. Id. at *4. Twenty-one employees failed the light cannon test and subsequently were removed from their positions. The EEOC asserted three main claims, including: (i) that Union Pacific discriminated against the employees by treating them unfavorably due to their perceived disabilities; (ii) that Union Pacific imposed qualification standards that unfairly screened out individuals with disabilities; and (iii) that Union Pacific conducted improper medical examinations and inquiries. The court found the EEOC’s allegations were plausible and sufficiently stated claims under the ADA. The court explained that the EEOC plausibly alleged that the employees were qualified under FRA standards if they passed the Ishihara test, despite failing the light cannon test. The court declined to take judicial notice of two decisions issued by the FRA’s Operating Crew Review Board, which were offered by Union Pacific to show that the light-cannon test was considered val Id. Accordingly, the court denied the motion to dismiss. The court opined that it faced too many fact issues to grant summary judgment in EEOC v. Modern Group, Ltd., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53275 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 25, 2024). The court denied summary judgment for Modern Group Ltd. and partially denied summary judgment for the EEOC in its suit claiming the companies violated the ADA when they walked back a job offer for Alexander Dare (Dare), after finding his prescribed methadone and Xanax doses were too high for him to operate equipment safely. According to the lawsuit, Modern Group denied employment to Dare, who was diagnosed with anxiety and Opioid Use Disorder (OUD), because of the prescription medications he used to treat those disabilities. Modern Group made a job offer to the applicant after he applied to work for Dragon Rig, in February 2019. The applicant completed and passed Modern Group’s required drug screen because he had prescriptions for the medications. However, the EEOC asserted that Modern Group jointly withdrew the offer of employment without contacting or engaging with the applicant to determine if he could perform the essential job functions with or without a reasonable accommodation, ultimately basing their decision on statements about the medications made by a medical review officer, in violation of the ADA. Both the EEOC and Modern Group sought summary judgment regarding whether Modern Group functioned as an integrated enterprise with third-party Dragon Rig. The EEOC presented evidence of significant operational ties between the two entities, such as shared management, human resources policies, and financial
11
© Duane Morris LLP 2025
EEOC Litigation Review - 2025
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online