{"id":721,"date":"2023-08-08T20:48:19","date_gmt":"2023-08-09T00:48:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=721"},"modified":"2023-08-08T20:48:19","modified_gmt":"2023-08-09T00:48:19","slug":"seventh-circuit-saves-eeocs-disability-discrimination-lawsuit","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2023\/08\/08\/seventh-circuit-saves-eeocs-disability-discrimination-lawsuit\/","title":{"rendered":"Seventh Circuit Saves EEOC\u2019s Disability Discrimination Lawsuit"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Alex W. Karasik, and Zev Grumet-Morris<\/strong><\/p>\n

Duane Morris Takeaways: <\/em><\/strong>In EEOC v. Charter Communications, LLC, Case No 22-1231, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 19528 (7th Cir. July 28, 2023), the Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded<\/a> a district court\u2019s grant of summary judgment in favor of the employer in an EEOC enforcement lawsuit, holding that an employee was possibly entitled to a modified work schedule as an accommodation to make his commute safer.<\/em><\/p>\n

This is a significant ruling in the context of EEOC-initiated ADA litigation, as employers may potentially see an increase in litigation related to denials of commute-related accommodation requests. <\/em><\/p>\n

Case Background<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Charging Party, James Kimmons (\u201cKimmons\u2019\u201d), alleged that his employer, Charter Communications (\u201cDefendant\u201d) violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (\u201cADA\u201d) 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, Defendant ultimately declined to extend this accommodation for an additional 30-days while Kimmons sought closer living arrangements.<\/p>\n

Kimmons filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC. After conciliation efforts failed, the EEOC filed a lawsuit on Kimmons\u2019 behalf. The district court granted summary judgment for 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\u2019 disability did not affect his ability to perform the essential functions of his job. Id. <\/em>at *6.<\/p>\n

The EEOC thereafter appealed to the Seventh Circuit.<\/p>\n

The Seventh Circuit\u2019s Decision<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Seventh Circuit reversed the district court\u2019s grant of Defendant\u2019s 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 \u201cmaybe.\u201d Id. <\/em>at *6. \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

As a threshold question, the Seventh Circuit examined the threshold question of whether an employee\u2019s 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 \u201cgetting to and from work is in most cases the responsibility of an employee, not the employer,\u201d the Seventh Circuit reasoned that an employee\u2019s 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.\u00a0 Id. <\/em>at *3.<\/p>\n

Further, the Seventh Circuit determined that a trier of fact could find Kimmons\u2019 travel to his workplace a prerequisite essential to his job duties, which demanded regular attendance. Moreover, whether or not Kimmons\u2019 cataracts constituted a disability was a question of fact, it was not unreasonable to believe it negatively impacted his evening commutes. And because Defendant failed to establish how Kimmons\u2019 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. <\/em>at *21<\/p>\n

Finally, the Seventh Circuit opined that it, \u201cdo[es] not intend to endorse an interpretation of the ADA where \u2018no good deed goes unpunished.\u2019\u201d\u00a0 Id. <\/em>at *23.\u00a0 The Seventh Circuit additionally clarified that the employer need not provide the exact accommodation the employee requests.\u00a0 However, the Seventh Circuit held that a qualified individual\u2019s 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.\u00a0 Id. <\/em>at *26.\u00a0 Accordingly, the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court\u2019s grant of Defendant\u2019s motion for summary judgment and remanded to the district court.<\/p>\n

Implications For Employers<\/strong><\/p>\n

This is a novel ruling in that it opens the possibility for employers to be held liable for accommodations related work scheduled based on commuting concerns. \u00a0While the Seventh Circuit made abundantly clear that it did not want to establish a bright-line rule, this decision demonstrates that in some situations, employers could potentially be responsible for granting accommodation requests related to work schedules and commutes.\u00a0 Employers should thus continue to closely consider all accommodation requests, even those that may seem outside of the scope of day-to-day job duties.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Alex W. Karasik, and Zev Grumet-Morris Duane Morris Takeaways: In EEOC v. Charter Communications, LLC, Case No 22-1231, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 19528 (7th Cir. July 28, 2023), the Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded a district court\u2019s grant of summary judgment in favor of the employer in an EEOC enforcement … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Seventh Circuit Saves EEOC\u2019s Disability Discrimination Lawsuit”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":583,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[36],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[30],"class_list":["post-721","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-eeoc-litigation"],"authors":[{"term_id":30,"user_id":583,"is_guest":0,"slug":"classactiondefense","display_name":"Class Action Defense","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2020\/10\/dmlogo.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/721","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/583"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=721"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/721\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=721"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=721"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=721"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=721"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}