EEOC Litigation Review – 2025

claim.” EEOC v. United States Drug Mart, Inc., 2022 WL 18539781, at *8 (W.D. Tex. 2022). On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling. The Fifth Circuit held that the EEOC was unable to establish a prima facie case for a hostile work environment claim because it was unable to prove that Calzada’s supervisor’s harsh words were “sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment.” 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 384 at *4. The Fifth Circuit observed that although the behavior of Calzada’s supervisor was “certainly brusque,” it fell well short of the fairly high standard for “severe” conduct. Id. The Fifth Circuit noted that the EEOC’s constructive discharge claim failed for the same reason, because proving constructive discharge required an even “greater degree of harassment than that required by a hostile work environment claim.” Id. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling of summary judgment in favor U.S. Drug Mart. The EEOC succeeded at summary judgment in EEOC v. Keystone RV Company, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54916 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 27, 2024). The charging party, Brandon Meeks, was diagnosed with a rare chronic condition, cystinuria, pursuant to which roughly once every two years, he would develop a large kidney stone requiring surgical removal. In 2019, Meeks was hired as a painter at Keystone RV Company’s (Keystone) Indiana plant, where he painted base coats on RV wheels. Keystone implemented an employee attendance policy whereby it would terminate an employee who accrued seven “attendance points” (absences) within a year and allowed an employee to miss up to three consecutive days with a doctors’ note, in which Keystone allowed that employee to accrue just one absence instead of three absences without the need for applying for an ADA accommodation. Id. at *2. During Meeks’ employment, he accrued several attendance points for absences related to his medical condition, including a visit to his urologist, and treatment for kidney stone pain. Id. Shortly thereafter, Meeks had a medical emergency at work where he collapsed in a restroom due to excruciating pain associated with his condition. It was later determined he had a “golf-ball-sized kidney stone” that required immediate surgical intervention. Id. at *3. Prior to surgery, Meeks informed Keystone that he would require two weeks-off of work for surgery and post-operative care, which Keystone approved. When Meeks returned to work post-operation, he requested additional time off for a second surgery, but failed to provide a return-to-work date. Meeks’ manager told him that he would be terminated if he missed any more work, and could reapply for employed 60 days later, per company policy. Id. According to Meeks, he knew he could likely return to work post-operation, but he never communicated the timeline to Keystone because Keystone “never asked.” Id. After Meeks underwent his second surgery, roughly two weeks later, Keystone terminated Meeks for violating the attendance points policy. The EEOC filed suit against Keystone for ADA discrimination. After the close of discovery, the EEOC moved for summary judgment. The court granted the EEOC’s motion for summary judgment and explained that this case illustrated one reason “why the ADA existed.” Id. at 1. The court opined that: “[n]o one can reasonably dispute that Mr. Meeks was a qualified individual with a disability. Keystone knew of the disability. And Keystone failed to accommodate the disability reasonably. A reasonable jury could not find otherwise on this record.” Id. at *11. The court further reasoned that Keystone clearly could have accommodated Meeks by providing him with two weeks leave but failed to do so. The court gave no credence to Keystone’s argument that Meeks did not effectively communicate his timeline post-surgery, and prior to his first surgery, he did not provide Keystone with an estimated return date. Rather, the court determined that Keystone had an affirmative obligation to initiate an interactive process with its employees and had historical knowledge of Meeks’ disability; because of this, the fault was Keystone’s alone. Id. at *16. Thus, because “[a] reasonable jury could not lay the fault at Mr. Meeks’ feet,” the court granted summary judgment in the EEOC’s favor on ADA liability. Id. at *17. In EEOC v. Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital, Inc., Case No. 17-CV-201 (M.D. Ga. Mar. 29, 2024), the court held that even minimal evidence of claims may be sufficient to find that that a lawsuit was not frivolous. In 2015, Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital, Inc. (Phoebe) hired Wendy Kelley (Kelley) as a medical records analyst for a Monday through Friday shift, with the understanding that Kelley needed to intermittently work weekends. When co-employee took maternity leave, Phoebe asked Kelley to cover some Saturday shifts. Kelley did not respond, and instead, met with her doctor immediately to discuss her generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). Among other things, Kelley’s doctor requested Kelley “take Saturdays and Sundays off work when she had to take an increased dose [of medication] at the end of a stressful workweek.” Id. at 6. As a result, Kelley submitted her accommodation, pursuant to the ADA, and requested not to work weekends. Phoebe denied her accommodation, explaining that hospitals inevitably are open 24/7, inclusive of the weekends. But Phoebe did

EEOC Litigation Review - 2025

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