EEOC Litigation Review – 2025

have sought such documentation, given the context of Spaeth’s requests and past experiences. The Seventh Circuit concluded that Wal-Mart’s behavior suggested that the company acted with reckless indifference towards Spaeth’s statutory rights as an individual with a disability, and therefore, the jury’s award of punitive damages was justified. Id. at 789. As to the award of compensatory damages, Wal-Mart sought to significantly reduce the jury’s award of $150,000, arguing it was excessive. However, the Seventh Circuit found that Spaeth’s distress from being discharged was both evident and significant, especially given her limited ability to process such loss due to her disability, and was thus justified in the award. In EEOC v. A&A Appliance Inc ., Case No. 23-CV-2456 (D. Colo. July 2, 2024), the court addressed affirmative defenses brought by the EEOC alleging that A&A Appliance Inc. (A&A) wrongfully terminated a worker who requested additional leave to deal with long COVID symptoms. The EEOC claimed that A&A violated of the ADA and retaliated against the employee when it denied her medical leave requests. While on leave in May and June 2020, the employee informed a human resources representative that she needed additional medical procedures and requested to extend her leave exceeding her initial 12-week FMLA period expired. A&A allegedly informed her that she could either return to work or resign. A&A subsequently terminated the employee, stating she was eligible for an additional four weeks of leave only if it was related to her initial reason for taking FMLA leave. The EEOC asserted that A&A determined, without justification, that the employee’s issues were unrelated to her COVID-19 infection and failed to engage with her about potential accommodations for her disability. A&A submitted 35 affirmative defenses, and the EEOC moved to strike the defenses. The court granted the EEOC’s motion to strike. The court determined that A&A’s defenses were either standard boilerplate arguments, irrelevant to the EEOC’s claims, or simply redundant. The court noted that the arguments claiming the employee lacked a disability or that A&A had adequately accommodated her were more about the merits of the case than legitimate affirmative defenses. The court opined that A&A’s affirmative defenses should not negate the elements of a claim but instead should allow A&A to avoid liability even if all claim elements are satisfied. Accordingly, the court found that the defenses should be struck, and granted the EEOC’s motion as to the majority of the defenses but allowed nine of the 35 affirmative defenses to stand. In EEOC v. Total System Services, LLC , 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115561 (N.D. Ga. July 1, 2024), the EEOC filed an action against Total System Services, LLC (TSS) for alleged violations of the ADA and FMLA, asserting that TSS failed to accommodate the disabilities of Joyce Poulson (Poulson), a former employee, retaliated against her for requesting such accommodations, and ultimately forced her to resign. Poulson worked as a customer service representative (CSR) for TSS from 2016-2020. As a CSR, Poulson was assigned to take telephone calls from the clients of three different banks related to travel benefits associated with their credit cards. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, TSS did not allow its employees to work remotely. In the wake of the pandemic, however, the company began transitioning as many employees as possible to remote work. Poulson was not selected to be one of the employees to transition to remote work based, in part, on the fact that TSS’s banking client would not allow it. In 2020, Poulson was diagnosed as a pre-diabetic by her doctor. This condition did not limit her job functions and was adequately controlled by medication. However, when one of Poulson’s co-workers tested positive for COVID-19, Poulson’s doctor advised that she should self-quarantine (for a period of time that was ultimately covered by the FMLA). After the period of self-quarantine, Poulson requested to continue with remote work based on her doctor’s recommendation that she was at “high-risk of suffering severe effects.” Id. at *16. TSS explained to Poulson that it would consider her for a remote position when the next round of remote positions became available. TSS also asked Poulson to demonstrate that she had adequate internet speed available at home to demonstrate that she could do her job remotely. When Poulson’s internet speed proved too slow and no remote positions opened, Poulson resigned her employment and accused TSS of exhibiting a “blatant disregard” for her health. Id. at *21. Poulson then took a new job where she would still have to work in person at least 50% of the time. Moreover, in her employment application for that job, Poulson indicated that she did not have a disability. During litigation, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation, and granted in-part TSS’s motion, and denied the EEOC’s motion. TSS asserted that Poulson could not evidence she fell under the ADA because she allegedly failed to meet essential job functions while working from home, specifically, her home internet was insufficient, she struggled with work without assistance, and one of her clients did not allow remote work. The EEOC asserted that Poulson’s internet capability was misrepresented and that she had demonstrated self-sufficiency in her role, and that even if she could not work for a specific TSS client, she was trained to work for other clients. The court held that there were material facts regarding whether Poulson: (i) met the requirements for remote work; and (ii) whether the tasks in question were indeed essential to her job. The court also found genuine

EEOC Litigation Review - 2025

Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online