position was not obviously without merit. The defendants also moved in the alternative to dismiss the EEOC's claims under Rule 12(b)(6). The Magistrate Judge recommend that this attempt at dismissal be denied as well. The Magistrate Judge determined that the EEOC sufficiently alleged that the defendants were a joint enterprise, because they shared bartending staff and inventory, they had a single director of operations, jointly marketed their business, and used employee documents which had the logo of each of the defendants. The Magistrate Judge concluded that the EEOC satisfied its burden to allege that the defendants operated as a joint enterprise to establish standing. The Magistrate Judge therefore recommended that the defendants’ motion to dismiss be denied. C. EEOC Appellate Cases In 2023, the EEOC garnered attention for appellate proceedings stemming from an ADA accommodations case. This significant Seventh Circuit decision declined to offer a bright-line assessment for accommodation requests and instead followed a fact- intensive inquiry suited for case-by-case analysis. In effect, the Seventh Circuit determined that commuter-related accommodations requests must be queried based on a reasonable circumstances standard. In EEOC v. Charter Communications, 75 F.4th 729 (7th Cir. 2023), the EEOC filed an action on behalf of charging party James Kimmons alleging that the defendant violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by refusing to accommodate his request for a temporary modified work schedule. Kimmons, who suffers from cataracts, sought a temporary schedule modification allowing him to begin and end his workday two-hours earlier in order to avoid nighttime driving. While originally granting the 30-day request, the defendant ultimately declined to extend this accommodation for an additional 30- days while Kimmons sought closer living arrangements. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendant, repeating the oft-cited understanding that employees are responsible for their own commute to and from the workplace. The district court further held that Kimmons’ disability did not affect his ability to perform the essential functions of his job. Id. at 733. The EEOC appealed to the Seventh Circuit. It reversed the district court ’ s grant of the defendant ’ s motion for summary judgment. In reaching this conclusion, the Seventh Circuit opined that the main question was whether the employee was entitled to a modified work schedule as an accommodation to make his commute safer. The Seventh Circuit concluded that the answer is “maybe.” Id . As a threshold question, the Seventh Circuit examined the question of whether an employee ’ s work schedule was inherently outside the scope of the ADA. Relying on decisions within its jurisdiction and those of its sister courts, the Seventh Circuit declined to offer a bright line rule. Instead, it concluded that the inquiry was fact- intensive and necessarily unbefitting for summary judgment resolution. Specifically, while acknowledging that “getting to and from work is in most cases the responsibility of an employee, not the employer,” the Seventh Circuit reasoned that an employee ’ s disability could interfere with that commute, thereby entitling him to a work schedule accommodation “if commuting to work is a prerequisite to an essential job function, such as attendance in the workplace, and if the accommodation is reasonable.” Id. at 732. Further, the Seventh Circuit determined that a trier of fact could find Kimmons’ travel to
35
© Duane Morris LLP 2024
The EEOC Litigation Review – 2024
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online