The EEOC Litigation Review - 2023 - Report - Page 19
did not state that any limitations extended beyond that time. Therefore, the court ruled
that the EEOC failed to demonstrate that Freeman had a disability within the meaning of
the ADA because the medical evidence could not raise a genuine dispute of material
fact that Freeman suffered from impairments that substantially limited the major life
activities of circulatory and respiratory functions in May 2018. The court thus granted
the defendant summary judgment on the EEOC’s ADA failure to accommodate claim.
However, the court opined that the EEOC successfully established a wrongful
termination claim because several versions of the job description did not include any
lifting requirements. Further, the EEOC submitted testimony from other warehouse
workers stating that the defendant discouraged them from lifting heavy items. Therefore,
the court found that there was a genuine issue of material fact such that the wrongful
termination claim should be left for a jury to determine. For these reasons, the court
granted in part and denied in part the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
Another key ADA ruling in 2022 is EEOC v. AutoZone, Inc., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
179912 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 30, 2022). The EEOC filed the action on behalf of eight
claimants who asserted that the defendants denied their requests for excused or
covered disability-related absences, and that they were subsequently terminated due to
excessive absences in violation of the ADA. The defendants moved for summary
judgment and asserted that the EEOC could not meet its prima facie burden to show
that the defendants failed to provide a reasonable accommodation to any of the eight
claimants. The EEOC cross-moved for summary judgment alleging that the defendants
failed to make exceptions to their no fault attendance policy for disability-related
absences. Id. at *4. The EEOC alleged that claimants would not have been discharged
but for absences that were inextricably linked to their disabilities. Id. The court denied
the motions. The defendants’ employee handbook notified employees that they were
expected to report to work on time and work all scheduled hours and that “continued
tardiness, unauthorized and/or unexcused absenteeism” could lead to discipline,
including termination. Id. at *14-15. The Handbook also stated that occurrence points
would be given for any absences or tardiness that were: (i) covered by short-term
disability leave; (ii) approved by FMLA leave of absence; (iii) related to emergency
volunteer responsibilities, such as an EMT, firefighter, and police officer; or (iv) covered
by leave of absence reasons. The EEOC asserted that any reasonable jury would
conclude that claimants were qualified individuals with a disability and that the
defendants failed to accommodate each claimant's disability by showing flexibility in the
application of the attendance policy. The defendants asserted that they should be
granted summary judgment because there was no dispute that attendance is an
essential function of the job for all claimants. The court concluded that it could not
determine as a matter of law what level of attendance was necessary for claimants to
satisfy the essential functions of their jobs with the defendants. The court determined
that whether the defendants’ attendance policy allowing 12 points of accumulated
warnings prior to termination was reasonable would be best determined by a jury. The
court stated that jurors could think this was a reasonable number of chances for an
employee, or they might conclude based on other factors emphasized by EEOC that
strict compliance with the attendance policy was not an essential function of claimants'
jobs. Id. at *37. Further, the court ruled that given the disputed state of the record, it
could not conclude as a blanket rule that being absent the number of times necessary to
19
© Duane Morris LLP 2023
The EEOC Litigation Review – 2023
