his workplace a prerequisite essential to his job duties, which demanded regular attendance. Moreover, whether or not Kimmons’ cataracts constituted a disability was a question of fact, and it was not unreasonable to believe it negatively impacted his evening commutes. Because the defendant failed to establish how Kimmons’ schedule modification imposed an undue burden on its operations, the accommodation was not inherently unreasonable sufficient to warrant dismissal of the litigation. While businesses are not compelled to exhaust every avenue to improve trivial comforts of its disabled workforce, the Seventh Circuit emphasized that it will consider the precise accommodation at issue when evaluating these efforts. Id. at 740. Finally, the Seventh Circuit opined that it, “does not intend to endorse an interpretation of the ADA where ‘ no good deed goes unpunished. ’ ” Id. at 741. The Seventh Circuit additionally clarified that the employer need not provide the exact accommodation the employee requests. However, the Seventh Circuit held that a qualified individual ’ s disability substantially interferes with his ability to get to work and attendance at work is an essential function, an employer may sometimes be required to provide a commute-related accommodation, if reasonable under the circumstance. Id. Accordingly, the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court ’ s grant of the defendant ’ s motion for summary judgment and remanded the case to the district court. D. The EEOC And Artificial Intelligence In the EEOC ’ s focus on discriminatory practices utilizing Artificial Intelligence, it settled a claim involving alleged discriminatory hiring software. In a first for the EEOC and the issue of artificial intelligence, the EEOC filed a joint settlement agreement in EEOC v. iTutorGroup, Inc., Case No. 22-CV-2565 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2023). The EEOC and a tutoring company filed an agreed upon consent decree memorializing a $365,000 settlement for claims involving hiring software that automatically rejected applicants based on their age. The defendants, iTutorGroup, Inc., Shanghai Ping ’ An Intelligent Education Technology Co., LTD, and Tutor Group Limited (Defendants), hired tutors to provide English-language tutoring to adults and children in China. Id. at *3. Defendants received tutor applications through their website. The sole qualification to be hired as a tutor for Defendants is a bachelor ’ s degree. Additionally, as part of the application process, applicants provide their date of birth. The EEOC filed a lawsuit on behalf of Wendy Pincus, the charging party, who was over the age of 55 at the time she submitted her application. The EEOC alleged that Pincus provided her date of birth on her application and was immediately rejected. Accordingly, the EEOC alleged that the defendants violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) for programming its hiring software to reject female applicants over 55 years old and male applicants over 60 years old. Id. at 1. The consent decree confirmed that the parties agreed to settle for $365,000, to be distributed to tutor applicants who were allegedly rejected by the defendants because of their age, during the time period of March 2020 through April 2020. Id. at 15. The settlement payments will be split evenly between compensatory damages and back pay. Id. at 16. In terms of non-monetary relief, the consent decree also requires the defendants to provide anti-discrimination policies and complaint procedures applicable to screening, hiring, and supervision of tutors and tutor applicants. Id. at 9. Further, the consent decree requires the defendants
36
© Duane Morris LLP 2024
The EEOC Litigation Review – 2024
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online