being placed on unpaid leave, and granted summary judgment in favor of AFS as to the remaining employees on this claim. Id. at *28. The court further held that AFS was entitled to summary judgment against all claimants based on their failure to establish a prima facie case for the EEOC ’ s failure-to-accommodate claim. Id. at *37. For example, the court found the EEOC did not show that two of the claimants made accommodation requests to AFS or how any such requests would accommodate the limitations presented by their disabilities. Id. at *36. The court ’ s penultimate holding concerned the EEOC ’ s claim that AFS ’ s drug policy constituted an impermissible qualification standard in violation of §§ 12112(b)(3) and 12112(b)(6) of the ADA by screening out qualified individuals with a disability. Id. at * 41-42. The court granted summary judgment as to all claimants on the screening-out claim based on the EEOC ’ s failure to support its claim with statistical evidence or by showing that any of the claimants were actually terminated and “screened out” from their jobs. Id. Finally, the court declined to consider or grant summary judgment on the EEOC ’ s interference claim because AFS failed to acknowledge it as a standalone cause of action and thus did not formally move for summary judgment on that claim. Id. at *44-45. Another key ADA ruling in 2023 is EEOC v. Allstate Beverage Co., LLC, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4852 (M.D. Ala. Jan. 11, 2023). The EEOC filed an action on behalf of charging party Jimmy Freeman against his former employer, Allstate Beverage Co., LLC (Allstate). The EEOC alleged that Allstate violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by failing to accommodate his disability and wrongfully terminating his employment based on his disability. After discovery, Allstate filed a motion for summary judgment, which the court granted for the ADA accommodation and termination claims because the EEOC failed to demonstrate that Freeman was actually disabled or had a record of impairment. The court denied Allstate ’ s motion for summary judgment on whether Allstate wrongfully terminated Freeman on the basis of regarding him as having a qualifying impairment. Allstate filed a motion for reconsideration of the court ’ s summary judgment ruling on the ADA regarded-as claim, arguing that the EEOC failed to properly plead the claim. The court agreed with Allstate ’ s argument. It opined that the EEOC ’ s complaint did not contain plausible allegations specifying which definition of disability (actual disability, record of impairment, or regarded as disability) applied to Freeman ’ s ADA discrimination claim. The court also noted that the EEOC ’ s pre-suit determination letter and Freeman ’ s EEOC charge did not put Allstate on notice of a regarded-as claim. Consequently, the court decided that the ADA regarded-as claim was not properly before it and vacated its previous denial of summary judgment on this claim. In EEOC v. Princess Martha, LLC , 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 219651 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 11, 2023), the EEOC brought an action against the defendants alleging that they subjected the charging party , Sarah Branyan, to discrimination by failing to hire or accommodate her based on her disability (PTSD) in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The EEOC specifically asserted that the defendants rescinded a job offer it extended to Branyan after she disclosed that she takes prescription medications to treat her PTSD. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the EEOC failed to exhaust its administrative remedies and that the complaint did not adequately allege a joint employment relationship. The defendants asserted that the EEOC only named
25
© Duane Morris LLP 2024
The EEOC Litigation Review – 2024
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online