Duane Morris Class Action Review - 2023 - Report - Page 157
damages. The district court, however, declined to issue an injunction against the
defendant. The defendant appealed, seeking judgment as a matter of law or,
alternatively, a new trial. The EEOC cross-appealed seeking remand to the district court
for further proceedings on the injunction. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the jury verdict
and the district court’s ruling declining to issue an injunction. Reina was a deaf, legally
blind employee who communicated through sign language and hand gestures. During
16 years at Wal-Mart, Reina had three job coaches. After a new manager was hired in
2015, the manager asserted that the job coaches were performing 90% to 95% of
Reina's job, suspended Reina’s employment, and required him to fill out a new
application to be a cart attendant. The EEOC thereafter filed suit alleging that the
defendant violated the ADA by denying Reina’s job coach accommodation. Following
the jury verdict, the defendant argued that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law
because the jury should not have concluded that Reina could perform the essential
functions of the cart attendant position. Id. at 656. The Seventh Circuit found that the
jury was properly instructed to decide the essential functions of a cart attendant and
whether Reina was capable of doing those essential functions. Further, the Seventh
Circuit determined that the jury properly concluded that Reina was able to perform the
essential functions of retrieving traditional carts and the essential customer service
functions of his job. In addition, the EEOC sought an injunction that would require the
defendant to not discriminate against disabled employees as required by the ADA; to
engage in the interactive process; to consider the use of a job coach or aide as a
reasonable accommodation where it does not impose an undue hardship on the
defendant; to adopt a checklist for all employees involved in the reasonable
accommodation determination process; and to give all its employees involved in the
reasonable accommodation process two hours of live training on the ADA. Id. at 661.
The EEOC contended that the district court committed legal error by focusing on
whether the defendant had engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination. The
Seventh Circuit opined that the district court gave sufficient reasoning that no evidence
suggested that the defendant’s proven illegal conduct might be resumed that would
justify the far-reaching injunction that the EEOC sought. Accordingly, the Seventh
Circuit affirmed the jury verdict and the district court’s ruling that denied the EEOC’s
request for an injunction.
E.
EEOC Cases Over Pay Discrimination
The EEOC brings numerous pay discrimination lawsuits in light of its SEP, and 2022
was no exception.
In EEOC v. University Of Miami, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30027 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 18, 2022),
the Commission filed an action on behalf of university professor Louise DavidsonSchmich, alleging that the defendant failed to pay her less than a similarly-situated male
professor (Dr. Kroger) on the basis of her gender in violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act. The defendant filed a motion in limine requesting that the court preclude
expert evidence from Dr. Erin George, an economist employed by the EEOC. The court
denied the motion. The EEOC tasked Dr. George with calculating back pay for Dr.
Davidson-Schmich with two assumptions: (i) that Dr. Davidson-Schmich should have
earned the same salary as Dr. Kroger when he was hired by the University in 2007; and
156
© Duane Morris LLP 2023
Duane Morris Class Action Review – 2023
