The EEOC Litigation Review - 2023 - Report - Page 18
Geisinger, the court held that the EEOC failed to plead facts sufficient to allege that the
various Geisinger entities were a single employer, thus requiring dismissal of four of the
seven named defendants; failed to plausibly allege that Casterline was a qualified
individual with a disability, thus undermining her individual claim and negating the
EEOC’s effort to identify a “class” or group of allegedly injured persons; failed to
sufficiently allege that otherwise untimely claims could move forward under a continuing
violation theory, thus limiting the operative claims to those occurring within the 300-day
statutory window; and failed to plead a causal connection between Casterline’s alleged
protected activity and her termination or Geisinger’s failure to accommodate her,
thereby requiring dismissal of the EEOC’s ADA retaliation claim. At the same time, the
court permitted the EEOC to further pursue its claim under Title V of the ADA, as well as
its claim that Geisinger’s policy of hiring the most qualified applicants rather than simply
reassigning disabled employees into positions for which they are qualified. As to the
Title V claim, the court noted the “scant case law” on ADA interference claims pursued
under Title V. While it recognized that courts in other federal circuits utilize the test for
anti-interference claims under the Fair Housing Act, it reasoned that the Third Circuit
has held that courts should give the word interference its dictionary definition, or the “act
of meddling in or hampering an activity or process.” Id. at *10. Without explicitly
holding that such a test should apply, the court found that the EEOC sufficiently pled
that Geisinger interfered with Casterline’s rights under the ADA as the Commission had
pleaded that Geisinger created and maintained records “that associate negative tags or
references, such as ‘litigation hold,’ with persons who have engaged in protected
activity and/or those seeking a reasonable accommodation or putting [Geisinger] on
notice that they need a reasonable accommodation.” Id. at *13. According to the court,
the EEOC’s allegations raised an inference that Geisinger “meddles” when employees
attempt to exercise their rights under the ADA.
Another significant ADA decision in 2022 is EEOC v. Allstate Beverage Co., LLC, 2022
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188905 (M.D. Ala. Oct. 17, 2022). There the EEOC filed an action on
behalf of charging party Jimmy Freeman, a warehouse employee, alleging that the
defendant failed to provide reasonable accommodations and terminated him due to his
disability in violation of the ADA. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment,
and the court granted in part denied in part the motion. Specifically, the court granted
the defendant’s motion on the accommodation claim and denied summary judgment as
to the wrongful termination claim. After Freeman suffered from a pulmonary embolism
in March of 2018, he was placed on FMLA leave. After completing a fitness-for-duty
evaluation by his doctor the following month, Freeman was given clearance to return to
work with a lifting restriction requiring him to refrain from lifting over 40 pounds. The
EEOC contended that the defendant did not allow Freeman to return to his position, and
that when his leave expired, it terminated his employment. The defendant argued that
Freeman's restrictions made him unqualified for his job, which included the duty of lifting
40 to 50 pounds about five times per day and being able push a loaded cart. The
defendant asserted that Freeman could not perform the essential functions of his job,
and thus his termination was justified. The EEOC asserted that the defendant failed to
provide Freeman with a reasonable accommodation and ultimately terminated his
employment. The court reasoned that Freeman’s doctor’s note indicated that his
circulatory and respiratory functions were affected in February and March of 2018, and
18
© Duane Morris LLP 2023
The EEOC Litigation Review – 2023
