Return to Home PageThe U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
DOCKET OF
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) LITIGATION
__________________________________
As of March 31, 1997
C. Gregory Stewart, General Counsel
Office of General Counsel
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Washington, D.C. 20507
Compiled by Sheryl J. Powers, Attorney Advisor
INTRODUCTION
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Commission) is
responsible for enforcing Title I of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and is authorized to bring civil
actions under that title as it applies to private employers,
employment agencies, labor organizations and labor-management
committees.
The litigation docket that follows is a compilation of all
the ADA lawsuits brought by the Commission and the ADA cases that
the Commission has pursued at the appellate level or has
participated in an amicus capacity. The cases are listed
alphabetically by status (i.e., trial docket, resolved cases,
appellate and amicus docket) and by the issues and impairments
presented. For any questions, additional information, or other
assistance, please contact Sheryl J. Powers at the EEOC's Office
of General Counsel (202) 663-4702.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Note: page numbers removed in on-line version)
I. TRIAL DOCKET - ACTIVE CASES
II. TRIAL DOCKET - RESOLVED CASES
III. APPELLATE AND AMICUS DOCKET
A. Appellate Cases
B. Amicus Cases
ISSUES
1. Accessibility
2. Arbitration
3. Association
4. Confidentiality
5. Demotion
6. Disability Benefits
7. Disability-Related Inquiries
8. Dual Filing
9. Forced Medical Leave
10. Harassment
11. Health Insurance Coverage
12. Hiring
13. Hostile Work Environment
14. Limiting, Segregating, and/or Classifying
15. Post and/or Keep Posted EEOC Notices
16. Promotion
17. Qualified Individual with a Disability
18. Reasonable Accommodation
19. Record Keeping
20. Reinstatement
21. Retaliation
22. Termination
23. Terms and Conditions
IMPAIRMENTS
1. Arm/Shoulder/Hand
2. Asthma
3. Back Impairments
4. Blood Disorders
5. Cancer
6. Cardiovascular/Heart
7. Cumulative Trauma Disorder\Carpal Tunnel Syndrome
8. Diabetes
9. Emotional/Psychiatric Impairments
10. Epilepsy/Seizures
11. Hearing Impairments
12. HIV/AIDS
13. Knee/Leg
14. Mental Retardation
15. Mobility
16. Neck/Head
17. Obesity
18. Paralysis
19. Speech
20. Spinal
21. Substance Abuse
22. Visual Impairments
23. Other
I. TRIAL DOCKET - ACTIVE CASES
These cases are currently in litigation and are listed in
alphabetical order by defendant. Cases that have been added
since the last docket distribution are marked with an "*."
As of March 31, 1997, there were 64 active cases on EEOC's Trial
Docket. The last ADA Docket distributed covered Commission cases
through September 30, 1996.
Carparts Distribution Center, Inc. et al. v. Automotive
Wholesaler's Association of New England, Inc. et al., Civil
Action No. C-92-592-M (D.N.H.) (see also Carparts
Distribution Center v. AWANE in "Appellate Docket," below.)
Issue: Health Insurance Coverage: The defendants
implemented and administered a health care plan
that limited coverage for treatment of AIDS-related
illnesses.
Filed: February 22, 1996: EEOC's Motion to Intervene and
Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to
Intervene filed; motion granted March 14, 1996
Contact: New York District Office (212) 748-8493
EEOC v. Add-Staff, Inc. and General Motors Corporation,
Civil Action No. 96-70840 (E.D. Mich.)
Issues: Confidentiality: The defendant disclosed
confidential medical information regarding the
charging party.
Disability-Related Inquiries: The defendant made
pre-employment inquiries regarding the charging
party's health.
Termination: The defendant terminated the
charging party because of his disability
(HIV/AIDS).
Terms and Conditions: The defendant denied the
charging party training because of his disability
(HIV/AIDS).
Filed: February 23, 1996
Contact: Detroit District Office (313) 226-6701
* EEOC v. Amboy Bus Company, Inc., Civil Action No. 96-5451
(E.D.N.Y.)
Issue: Reinstatement: The defendant refused to reinstate
the charging party to his position of school bus
driver after his recovery from an on-the-job
accident that resulted in amputation of the
charging party's left leg.
Filed: November 5, 1996
Contact: New York District Office (212) 748-8491
EEOC v. Ameripol Synpol Corp. and Oil, Chemical and Atomic
Workers International Union and its Local Union No. 4-228,
Civil Action No. 1: 95CV349 (E.D. Tex.)
Issues: Reasonable Accommodation: The defendant failed to
accommodate the charging party's disability
(lumbar disk syndrome-back).
Reinstatement: The defendant refused to allow the
charging party to return to work as a forklift
operator because of his disability.
Filed: June 21, 1995
Contact: Houston District Office (713) 209-3320
* EEOC v. Anesthesia Associates of Richmond, Inc., Civil
Action No. 3:96-CV-1016 (E.D. Va.)
Issues: Terms and Conditions: The defendant refused to
allow the charging party to perform her job as a
nurse anesthetist after it learned that she had
been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder and
had taken medication for its control. The
defendant also refused to recommend the charging
party for hospital privileges.
Termination: The defendant subsequently
terminated the charging party from her position
because it regarded her as an individual with a
disability.
Filed: December 20, 1996
Contact: Baltimore District Office (410) 962-3872
EEOC v. Bethlehem Steel Shipyard at Sparrows Point, Civil
Action No. B-95-2676 (D. Md.)
Issue: Hiring: The defendant refused to hire charging
parties Del Pino (visual impairment) and Driscoll
(limited use of left hand as result of burn-related
scarring) because of their actual or perceived
disabilities.
Filed: September 12, 1995
Contact: Baltimore District Office (410) 962-3870
EEOC v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Missouri, Civil Action No.
4:94-MC-161 CED (E.D. Mo.)
Issue: Health Insurance Coverage: The defendant denied
treatment of charging party Harris' wife's breast
cancer, charging party Carlton's multiple myeloma,
and charging party LaVancy's breast cancer.
(Subpoena enforcement action)
Filed: July 7, 1994
Contact: St. Louis District Office (314) 539-7800
EEOC v. Cheers: Funeatery, Civil Action No. 95CV5828(JHR)
(D.N.J.)
Issues: Disability-Related inquiries: The defendant made
unlawful inquiries of the charging party's co-workers
to establish the charging party's HIV status.
Retaliation: The defendant terminated the
charging party in retaliation for his asserting
his rights under the ADA.
Termination: The defendant terminated the
charging party because he was HIV-positive.
Filed: November 21, 1995
Contact: Philadelphia District Office (215) 451-5787
EEOC v. Chemcast Corp., Civil Action No. 96-74465 (E.D.
Mich.)
Issue: Hiring: The defendant refused to hire the
charging party and withdrew a job offer because of
her disability (asthma).
Filed: September 26, 1996
Contact: Detroit District Office (313) 226-6701
EEOC v. The Chrysler Corp., Civil Action No. 96-74184 (E.D.
Mich.)
Issue: Hiring: The defendant refused to employ the
charging party as an assembly line worker because
of his disability or perceived disability (back
impairment).
Filed: September 6, 1996
Contact: Detroit District Office (313) 226-6701
EEOC v. City Rescue Mission, Inc., Civil Action No.
95-862-civ-J.20 (M.D. Fla.)
Issue: Reasonable Accommodation: The defendant failed to
accommodate the charging party's disability
(missing a leg).
Filed: August 31, 1995
Contact: Miami District Office (305) 536-4491
* EEOC v. CNA Insurance Companies, et al., Civil Action No.
97-C-2198 (N.D. Ill.)
Issues: Reasonable Accommodation: The defendant denied
the charging party a reasonable accommodation.
The defendant also maintained a policy requiring
employees returning to work from short-term
disability to resume "normal" duties without
regard to reasonable accommodations.
Termination: The defendant discharged the
charging party because of her disability.
Filed: March 31, 1997
Contact: Chicago District Office (312) 353-7649
EEOC v. Complete Auto Transit, Inc., Civil Action No.
95-73427 (DPH) (E.D. Mich.)
Issue: Reasonable Accommodation: The defendant failed to
accommodate the charging party (through
reassignment) because of his actual or perceived
disability (a seizure disorder).
Filed: August 25, 1995
Contact: Detroit District Office (313) 226-6701
EEOC v. Consolidated Crane Services, Inc. and Consolidated
Crane Co., Inc., Civil Action No. H-95-3285 (S.D. Tex.)
Issue: Termination: The defendant terminated the charging
party from his position of welder because of his
disability (methadone use pursuant to drug abuse
program).
Filed: June 20, 1995
Contact: Houston District Office (713) 209-3402
* EEOC v. Emmanuel Convalescent Hospital, Civil Action No. C
97 20078 (N.D. Cal.)
Issue: Terms and Conditions: The defendant transferred
the charging party from her position as food
server/preparer in the Dietary Department to the
Activities Department because of her disability.
Filed: January 23, 1997
Contact: San Francisco District Office (415) 356-5083
EEOC v. Equitable Bag Co., Civil Action No. 1:96CV0367 (E.D.
Tex.)
Issue: Hiring: The defendant withdrew offers of
employment to five individuals because it
perceived them as being disabled as a result of
back impairments.
Filed: June 12, 1996
Contact: Houston District Office (713) 209-3321
EEOC v. Exxon Corp., Civil Action No. 395-CV1311-H (N.D.
Tex.)
Issues: Hiring: The defendant failed to hire individuals
with a record of rehabilitation for past substance
abuse for "designated" positions.
Terms and Conditions: The defendant excluded
individuals, failed to promote and demoted
individuals with a record of rehabilitation for
past substance abuse from "designated" positions,
namely charging parties whom the defendant demoted
from the designated position of flight engineer to
non-designated position of mechanic because of
their record for past substance abuse.
Filed: June 28, 1995
Contact: Dallas District Office (214) 655-3327
EEOC v. Federal Express Corp., Civil Action No. 95 2723 TU A
(W.D. Tenn.)
Issue: Terms and Conditions: The defendant denied the
charging party (who has spina bifida) and other
individuals with disabilities the privilege of
traveling in the jump seats of defendant's
airplanes.
Filed: September 18, 1995
Contact: Memphis District Office (901) 544-0115
* EEOC v. Federal Express Corp., Civil Action No. 96-P-33108-S
(N.D. Ala.)
Issues: Terms and Conditions: The defendant refused to
reassign the charging party because of her
disability (back injury).
Reasonable Accommodation: The defendant failed to
provide a reasonable accommodation to the charging
party's limited ability to lift.
Termination: The defendant discharged the
charging party because of her disability.
Filed: November 27, 1996
Contact: Birmingham District Office (205) 731-1359
* EEOC v. First Union National Bank of North Carolina, Civil
Action No. 3:96-CV-528-H (W.D.N.C.)
Issues: Termination: The defendant discharged the
charging party, a temporary worker, after less
than half a day of work, because of her disability
(paralysis of her right arm, hand and leg).
Terms and Conditions: The defendant applied
qualification standards that screened out or
tended to screen out the charging party because of
her disability.
Filed: December 12, 1996
Contact: Charlotte District Office (704) 344-6682
* EEOC v. Fostoria Restaurants, Inc., d/b/a Taco Bell of
Fostoria, Ohio, Civil Action No. 3:97-CV-7725 (N.D. Ohio)
Issue: Disability-Related Inquiries: The defendant uses
an application that contains pre-employment
inquiries in violation of the ADA.
Filed: March 7, 1997
Contact: Cleveland District Office (216) 522-7453
EEOC v. Gates, Hudson and Associates, Inc., et al., Civil
Action No. AW-96-2614 (D. Md.)
Issues: Reasonable Accommodation: The defendants refused
to provide the charging party with a reasonable
accommodation for his disability (blindness
related to diabetes) that would have permitted him
to continue to perform his job as a maintenance
supervisor.
Terms and Conditions: The defendant unnecessarily
transferred the charging party because of his
disability.
Termination: The defendant unlawfully discharged
the charging party from his transferred position
of leasing agent because of his disability.
Filed: August 20, 1996
Contact: Baltimore District Office (410) 962-4239
EEOC v. General Electric Co. d/b/a GE Appliances, and
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local No.
2249, Civil Action No. IP96-0199 C-H/G (S.D. Ind.)
Issue: Terms and Conditions: The defendant refused to
train the charging party as a forklift operator
because of his disability (deafness).
Filed: February 12, 1996
Contact: Memphis District Office (901) 544-0115
* EEOC v. General Electric Co., Civil Action No. 97CV0053
(N.D. Ind.)
Issues: Harassment: The defendant subjected the charging
party to harassment because of his disability.
Termination: The defendant forced the charging
party to terminate his employment because of his
disability.
Filed: February 6, 1997
Contact: Indianapolis District Office (317) 226-5571
EEOC v. Harvest Foods, Civil Action No. LR-C-95-408 (E.D.
Ark.)
Issue: Reinstatement: The defendant refused to return
the charging party to his position of truck driver
after a leave of absence because of his disability
(depression & panic attacks).
Filed: June 30, 1995
Contact: Memphis District Office (901) 544-0115
* EEOC v. Hatcher, Stubbs, Land, Hollis and Rothschild, Civil
Action No. 4:96-CV-187(JRE) (M.D. Ga.)
Issues: Reinstatement: The defendant refused to reinstate
the charging party because of her disability.
Disability-Related Inquiries: The defendant
required disability related data inconsistent with
business necessity.
Filed: November 21, 1996
Contact: Atlanta District Office (404) 562-6800
EEOC v. Health Quest Management Corp. VII d/b/a Regents Park
of Sarasota, Civil Action No. 94-1824-CIV-T-2 (M.D. Fla.)
Issue: Termination: The defendant terminated the charging
party based on her record of disability (breast
cancer).
Filed: November 16, 1994
Contact: Miami District Office (305) 536-4491
* EEOC v. The Heil Company, Civil Action No. CV-(&-S-0235-M
(N.D. Ala.)
Issue: Forced Medical Leave: The defendant subjected the
charging party to involuntary leave because of a
perceived disability (back injury).
Termination: The defendant permanently laid-off
the charging party because it perceived him as
disabled.
Filed: January 29, 1997
Contact: Birmingham District Office (205) 731-1299
EEOC v. The Hertz Corp., Civil Action No. 96 72421 (E.D.
Mich.)
Issues: Reasonable Accommodation: The defendant refused
to provide reasonable accommodation for two
individuals.
Termination: The defendant subsequently
discharged the two individuals from their trash
pick-up/maintenance positions because of their
disability (mental retardation).
Filed: May 24, 1996
Contact: Detroit District Office (313) 226-6701
* EEOC v. Jamaica Hospital Nursing Home Co., Civil Action No.
CV 97 1541 (E.D.N.Y.)
Issue: Hiring: The defendant conditioned some offers of
employment on the results of a medical exam that
was not required of all entering employees. The
defendant revoked a job offer to the charging
party for the position of a nursing assistant
after an EKG revealed a possible irregularity.
Filed: March 31, 1997
Contact: New York District Office (212) 748-8506
* EEOC v. John Deere Commercial Products, Inc., Civil Action
No. 196-193 (S.D. Ga.)
Issues: Confidentiality: The defendant violated the
confidentiality provisions of the ADA by failing
to keep medical history information on applicants
on separate forms and in separate files from
general personnel information.
Disability-Related Inquiries: The defendant
required job applicants to disclose their medical
history on job application forms. Further, the
defendant improperly inquired about the nature and
severity of the charging party's perceived
disability.
Termination: The defendant constructively
discharged the charging party because it regarded
her as having a disability.
Filed: November 19, 1996
Contact: Atlanta District Office (404) 562-6800
EEOC v. J.R. Tobacco of North Carolina, Inc., Civil Action
No. 5:96-CV-183-H(1) (W.D.N.C.)
Issues: Reasonable Accommodation: The defendant failed to
accommodate the charging party by offering him
alternative employment at the time of his
termination.
Termination: The defendant terminated the
charging party because of his disability (spina
bifida).
Filed: March 1, 1996
Contact: Charlotte District Office (704) 344-6682
EEOC v. Kaiser Permanente, Civil Action No. C-94-4368 CAL
ENE (N.D. Cal.)
Issues: Confidentiality: The defendant violated the
confidentiality provisions of the ADA in failing
to keep the charging party's medical records
separate from her employee personnel file (back
injury).
Disability-Related Inquiries: The defendant's
pre-employment documents contained disability-related
inquiries.
Filed: December 20, 1994
Contact: San Francisco District Office (415) 356-5084
* EEOC v. Man's World, Inc., Civil Action No. 5:96-CV-414-1
(M.D. Ga.)
Issue: Termination: The defendant discharged the
charging party because of his disability (HIV
status).
Filed: November 1, 1996
Contact: Atlanta District Office (404) 562-6800
EEOC v. MCI Telecommunications Corp., Civil Action No.
96-2251 PHX EHC (D. Ariz.)
Issue: Reasonable Accommodation: The defendant failed to
accommodate the charging party's disability
(muscular dystrophy) by refusing to provide him
with wheelchair accessible transportation to an
employer-sponsored event.
Filed: September 25, 1996
Contact: Phoenix District Office (602) 640-5029
EEOC v. Mercy Hospital and Medical Center, Civil Action No.
960-6350 (N.D. Ill.)
Issue: Hiring: The defendant refused to hire the
charging party in the position of Occupational
Therapist because of her disability (ataxia).
Filed: September 30, 1996
Contact: Chicago District Office (312) 353-7568
EEOC v. MTS Corp. d/b/a SUPERCUTS, and TMS, Inc., d/b/a
SUPERCUTS, Civil Action No. CIV-94-1473 LH (D.N.M.)
Issues: Hostile Work Environment: The defendant
permitted, encouraged and condoned a hostile work
environment for the charging party because of the
charging party's disability (AIDS).
Reasonable Accommodation: The defendant failed to
accommodate the charging party in refusing his
request to transfer, which forced him to request a
leave of absence.
Termination: The defendant constructively
discharged the charging party.
Retaliation: The defendant retaliated against the
charging party for filing an ADA charge.
Filed: December 28, 1994; March 31, 1995 motion to amend
the complaint to add failure to accommodate and
retaliation claims. The charging party intervened
in the Commission's suit.
Contact: Phoenix District Office (602) 640-2362
* EEOC v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation a/k/a
Amtrak, Civil Action No. 1:96CV02819 (D.D.C.)
Issue: Hiring: The defendant refused to hire the
charging party for the position of electrician
because of his hearing impairment.
Filed: December 20, 1996
Contact: Baltimore District Office (410) 962-3872
EEOC v. Nelson and Associates/Third East Hills Park
Cooperative, Inc., Civil Action No. 95-0888 (W.D. Pa.)
Issues: Disability-Related Inquiries: The defendant
unlawfully inquired into the charging party's HIV
status.
Confidentiality: The defendant disclosed the
charging party's HIV status to his colleagues,
tenants, and his baby-sitter. A companion case
(private suit) alleges that the charging party was
constructively discharged as a result of such
harassment.
Filed: June 12, 1995
Contact: Philadelphia District Office (215) 451-5787
* EEOC v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., Civil Action No. C 96 1760
(W.D. Wash.)
Issue: Termination: The defendant terminated the
charging party or withdrew a conditional offer of
employment based on her disability (insulin-dependent
diabetes mellitus).
Filed: November 8, 1996
Contact: Seattle District Office (206) 220-6883
EEOC v. Olsten Staffing Services, Inc., Civil Action No.
1:95-CV-1423 (N.D. Ohio)
Issue: Disability-Related Inquiries: The defendant
utilizes an employment application that contains
pre-employment inquiries prohibited by the ADA.
Filed: June 27, 1995
Contact: Cleveland District Office (216) 522-7430
EEOC v. Pacific West Co., LTD, d/b/a/ Holiday Inn, Crowne
Plaza, Civil Action No. 96-3647 (C.D. Cal.)
Issue: Health Insurance Coverage: The defendant
maintains a health insurance policy that limits
benefits for AIDS related treatments to $10,000
per year/$25,000 lifetime; benefits for other
conditions are capped at $1 million.
Filed: May 23, 1996
Contact: Los Angeles District Office (213) 894-1000
EEOC v. Paragon Properties Co., Civil Action No. 9660080
(E.D. Mich.)
Issues: Termination: The defendant terminated the
charging party from his position as maintenance
manager because of his disability (heart
condition).
Association: The defendant also terminated the
charging party's wife on the same day because of
her association with the charging party.
Filed: April 4, 1996
Contact: Detroit District Office (313) 226-6701
* EEOC v. Perfection Steel Treating, Inc., Civil Action No.
97-70306 (E.D. Mich.)
Issues: Disability-Related Inquiries: The defendant
includes on its application form prohibited
pre-employment inquiries about prior absenteeism and
medical/disabled status.
Reasonable Accommodation: The defendant refused
to reasonably accommodate the charging party's
disability (hearing impairment) to enable him to
perform the essential functions of his furnace
operator position.
Termination: The defendant terminated the
charging party from his position because of his
disability.
Filed: January 24, 1997
Contact: Detroit District Office (313) 226-6701
EEOC v. Positive Resources, Inc., Civil Action No. 4:96 CV
01855LOD (E.D. Mo.)
Issues: Termination: The defendant discharged the
charging party because of her disabilities
(diabetes and hypertension).
Disability-Related Inquiries: The defendant
requests disability-related questions on its
employment application forms.
Terms and Conditions: The defendant required its
employees to undergo medical examinations that
were not job-related and consistent with business
necessity.
Confidentiality: The defendant failed to maintain
employee medical information in separate medical
files.
Filed: September 16, 1996
Contact: St. Louis District Office (314) 539-7800
EEOC & Michael J. Boyle v. R. J. Gallagher Co., Civil Action
No. H-94-2247, (S.D. Tex.)
Issues: Reasonable Accommodation: The defendant failed to
accommodate the charging party's disability
(cancer) and instead demoted him upon his return
from medical leave.
Demotion: The defendant demoted the charging
party upon his return from medical leave.
Termination: The defendant terminated the
charging party because of his disability.
Health Insurance Coverage: The defendant denied
coverage to the charging party.
Filed: June 30, 1994: EEOC filed Application for
Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Relief
pending final disposition of charging party
Boyle's charge. The same day, the trial court
entered a "preliminary injunction." The court
ordered the defendant to continue to pay for
charging party's health insurance.
November 4, 1994: Complaint on the merits filed.
Contact: Houston District Office (713) 209-3402
* EEOC v. R. J. Valente Gravel, Inc., Civil Action No. 97-CV-0163
(N.D.N.Y.)
Issue: Termination: The defendant discharged the
charging party from his truck driver position
after the amputation of his right leg.
Filed: February 6, 1997
Contact: New York District Office (212) 748-8512
EEOC v. Rockwell International Corporation, Inc., Civil
Action No.95C-3824 (N.D. Ill.)
Issue: Hiring: The defendant failed to hire persons who
did not pass a nerve conduction test that was used
by the defendant to screen out applicants
inaccurately perceived as disabled. (The defendant
claims that the test would reveal which applicants
might develop carpal tunnel syndrome or other
cumulative trauma disorders in the future.)
Filed: June 30, 1995
Contact: Chicago District Office (312) 353-7525
* EEOC v. Santa Fe Int'l. Corp., Civil Action No. 3-97CV0532-R
(N.D. Tex.)
Issue: Termination: The defendant discharged the
plaintiff from his rig mechanic position because
of his disability (impaired respiration and speech
due to laryngectomy).
Filed: March 11, 1997
Contact: Dallas District Office (214) 655-3336
* EEOC v. Sisters of Providence Hospital, Anchorage, Civil
Action No. A96-358 CIV (D. Ala.)
Issues: Reasonable Accommodation: The defendant refused
to provide the charging party with an
accommodation to allow him to perform the
essential functions of his job after his left arm
became paralyzed.
Termination: The defendant terminated the
charging party from his position because of his
disability.
Filed: October 2, 1996.
Contact: Seattle District Office (206) 220-6913
* EEOC v. Shoney's of Biltmore, Inc., et al., Civil Action No.
1:96CV293C (W.D.N.C.)
Issue: Termination: The defendants terminated the
charging party from his position as a server
because of his disability (partial paralysis of
his left hand).
Filed: November 22, 1996.
Contact: Charlotte District Office (704) 344-6682
* EEOC v. Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Co., Civil Action
No. EV 96 243-C (S.D. Ind.)
Issue: Hiring: The defendant failed to hire the charging
party for the position of auxiliary equipment
operator because it regarded him as disabled
(asymptomatic back condition).
Filed: November 18, 1996.
Contact: Indianapolis District Office (317) 226-5571
* EEOC v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., Civil Action No.
3:96-CV 3040 (N.D. Tex.)
Issue: Termination: The defendant failed or refused to
allow the charging party to return to his position
of air conditioning specialist because of his
disability (depression).
Filed: November 7, 1996.
Contact: Dallas District Office (214) 655-3334
* EEOC v. Superior Distributors, Civil Action No. 96-6103
(JWB) (D.N.J.)
Issues: Reasonable Accommodation: The defendant failed to
accommodate the charging party's disability
(chronic renal (kidney) failure) upon his return
to work from a medical leave of absence.
Termination: The defendant discharged the
charging party because of his disability.
Filed: December 30, 1996
Contact: Philadelphia District Office (215) 451-5787
EEOC v. Union Pacific Railroad, Civil Action No.
CIV 96-0282-E-BLW (D. Idaho)
Issue: Termination: The defendant terminated the
charging party because it perceived him as being
disabled (monocular vision).
Filed: July 3, 1996
Contact: Seattle District Office (206) 220-6883
EEOC v. United Airlines, Inc., Civil Action No. CIV 95-0478
LH (D.N.M.)
Issues: Reasonable Accommodation: The defendant failed to
accommodate the charging party's disability (back
impairment) by refusing to provide accommodations
to her lift/weight restrictions, thus preventing
the charging party from returning to work.
Termination: The defendant terminated the
charging party because of her disability.
Filed: May 2, 1995
Contact: Phoenix District Office (602) 640-2366
* EEOC v. United Parcel Service, Civil Action No. C-97 00961
(N.D. Cal.)
Issue: Limiting, Segregating and/or Classifying: The
defendant refused to employ persons with monocular
vision for positions such as package car drivers
on certain trucks and limited their conditions of
employment for positions such as mechanic.
Filed: March 20, 1997
Contact: San Francisco District Office (415) 356-5082
* EEOC v. Valley Children's Hospital, Civil Action No. F-97-5183
(E.D. Cal.)
Issues: Reasonable Accommodation: The defendant refused
to reasonably accommodate the charging party and
maintained a policy prohibiting employees on
medical leave from returning to work until
released by a doctor with no restrictions.
Termination: The defendant discharged the
charging party because of her disability.
Filed: March 4, 1997
Contact: San Francisco District Office (415) 356-5069
EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc., Civil Action No. 3-96-2739-10BC
(D.S.C.)
Issue: Termination: The defendant discharged the
charging party because of his disability (seizure
disorder).
Filed: September 9, 1996
Contact: Charlotte District Office (704) 344-6682
EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Civil Action No. CIV-94-1076-LH
(D.N.M.)
Issues: Hiring: The defendant refused to hire the
charging party because of his disability
(paraplegia; wheel chair user).
Reasonable Accommodation: The defendant failed to
accommodate the charging party as an applicant.
Filed: September 22, 1994
Contact: Phoenix District Office (602) 640-2364
EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Civil Action No. 95-1200MV
(D.N.M.)
Issues: Reasonable Accommodation: The defendant failed to
provide an interpreter to accommodate the charging
party's disability (hearing impairment) during a
mandatory video showing.
Retaliation: The defendant transferred, suspended
and ultimately discharged the charging party from
the position of stocker position because of his
disability and because he asked to have an
interpreter during a mandatory video showing.
Termination: The defendant discharged the
charging party because he did not accept a
discriminatory job assignment and because of his
disability.
Filed: October 11, 1995
Contact: San Antonio District Office (210) 229-4843
EEOC v. Washington Hospital Center, Civil Action No.
1:96CV02271 (D.D.C.)
Issues: Reasonable Accommodation: The defendant refused
to provide the charging party with reduced hours
or transfer him to a part-time position as a
reasonable accommodation to his disability
(disorder affecting his lymphatic, cardiovascular
and digestive systems).
Termination: The defendant discharged the
charging party because of his disability.
Filed: September 30, 1996
Contact: Baltimore District Office (410) 962-3851
EEOC v. Westco, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. S-96-0253-JLQ
(E.D. Wash.)
Issue: Harassment: The defendant subjected the charging
party to hostile environment harassment on the
basis of her disability (congenital hip defect)
and sex (female).
Filed: May 6, 1996
Contact: Seattle District Office (206) 220-6883
EEOC v. Williams Electronics Games, Inc., Civil Action No.
94-C-5384 (N.D. Ill.)
Issue: Hiring: The defendant refused to hire the charging
party because of perceived disability (back
impairment) and charging party's record of
disability (Workers' Compensation claim filed).
Filed: September 1, 1994
Contact: Chicago District Office (312) 353-7569
II. TRIAL DOCKET - RESOLVED CASES
These cases have either reached final judgment or have otherwise
been resolved and are listed in alphabetical order by defendant.
Cases that have been resolved since the last docket distribution
are marked with an "*." As of March 31, 1997, EEOC had resolved
121 cases.
EEOC v. 1348 Division Corp. d/b/a The Pub, Civil Action No.
EV-94-190-C (S.D. Ind.)
Issues: Termination: The defendant terminated the
charging party because of his disability (HIV
positive).
Confidentiality: The defendant violated the
confidentiality provisions of ADA in discussing
the charging party's medical condition and history
with other employees, and in failing to keep the
charging party's medical records separate from his
personnel file.
Filed: December 2, 1994
Resolved: October 23, 1995: Consent decree providing the
charging party with $25,000 in damages and
requiring the defendant to keep employee medical
information confidential and to provide ADA
training to its employees.
Contact: Indianapolis District Office (317) 226-7208
EEOC v. ADPS Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a ADPS Computer World,
Civil Action No. C94-0407 (W.D. Wash.)
Issues: Disability-Related Inquiries: The defendant
unlawfully asked the charging party whether he had
AIDS, just prior to his discharge.
Termination: The defendant terminated the
charging party because of his disability (AIDS).
Filed: March 21, 1994
Resolved: March 2, 1995: Stipulation and Order of Dismissal
filed because the corporation is defunct.
Contact: Seattle District Office (206) 220-6906
EEOC v. Aeroparts Manufacturing & Repair, Inc., Civil Action
No. CIV-94-11108SC (D.N.M.)
Issue: Hiring: The defendant refused to hire the
charging party because of her disability (heart
impairment).
Filed: September 29, 1994
Resolved: February 12, 1996: Consent decree providing
$32,250 in monetary relief.
Contact: Phoenix District Office (602) 640-2364
EEOC & Charles Wessel v. AIC Security Investigations, Ltd,
et. al., Civil Action No. 92-C-7330 (N.D. Ill.)
Issue: Termination: The defendant terminated the charging
party because of his disability (terminal brain
cancer/lung cancer).
Filed: November 5, 1992
Decided: Jury verdict: March 18, 1993; Judgment entered
June 7, 1993. Jury found for the plaintiffs and
awarded $22,000 in back pay, $50,000 in
compensatory damages, $250,000 in punitive damages
against defendant AIC and $250,000 in punitive
damages against Ms. Vrdolyak, owner of defendant
AIC. Court reduced punitive damages award to
$150,000 total for both defendants.
Appeal: The Seventh Circuit found that Ms. Vrdolyak could
not be held personally liable and that the
district court erred in not dismissing her as a
defendant. The court affirmed the award of
$50,000 in compensatory damages, found that the
$150,000 total in punitive damages was not
excessive, and remanded the punitive damages award
to the district court for consideration of whether
Vrdolyak's share of punitive damages should be
imposed on AIC. (See Appellate Docket, below.)
On remand, the trial court held the $150,000
punitive damage award should be paid by AIC.
Contact: Chicago District Office (312) 353-7569
EEOC v. Allied Services Division Welfare Fund, Southern
Pacific Lines; Allied Services Division, Civil Action No.
93-5076-WMB (C.D. Cal.)
Issue: Health Insurance Coverage: The defendant placed a
$5,000 lifetime cap on medical coverage for AIDS-related
treatment; all other catastrophic illnesses carry a
$300,000 cap.
Filed: August 24, 1993: Complaint for TRO and
Preliminary Injunction filed during investigation
to require the defendants to cover the charging
parties' medical expenses during the
investigation.
Resolved: September 28, 1993: Stipulated settlement
requiring the defendant to pay the charging
parties for medical expenses incurred and deleting
plan provision establishing $5,000 cap. Other
affirmative relief provided.
Contact: Los Angeles District Office (213) 894-1083
EEOC v. AlliedSignal Aerospace, Civil Action No. 92-2776
(WGB) (D.N.J.)
Issues: Termination: The defendant terminated the
charging party from his position as Procurement
Specialist because of his disability (HIV/AIDS).
Reasonable Accommodation: The defendant refused
to grant the charging party's request for
reassignment to a different position with less
travel after the company doctor had imposed a
travel restriction on the charging party.
Retaliation: The defendant retaliated against the
charging party when it terminated him only 12 days
after being informed that the charging party was
seeking legal counsel.
Filed: June 23, 1995
Resolved: February 29, 1996: Settlement agreement providing
$63,500 for the charging party.
Contact: Philadelphia District Office (215) 451-5787
EEOC v. Amego, Inc., Civil Action No. 94-11967-RWZ (D.
Mass.)
Issues: Reasonable Accommodation: The defendant failed to
accommodate the charging party's disability
(bulimia and depression) in determining that
charging party posed an unreasonable risk of harm,
could not continue to perform her job as Team
Leader, and could not be accommodated.
Termination: The defendant terminated the
charging party after refusing to provide an
accommodation.
Filed: September 29, 1994
Decided: May 16, 1996: The district court granted the
defendant's motion for summary judgment and found
that the plaintiff was not a qualified individual
with a disability.
Status: On appeal. (See Appellate Docket, below.)
Contact: New York District Office (212) 748-8493
* EEOC v. American Golf Corp. d/b/a Continental Golf Course,
Civil Action No. 95-2067PHX SMM (D. Ariz.)
Issues: Disability-Related Inquiries: The defendant made
pre-employment inquiries regarding the charging
party's and other applicants' disabilities
(charging party disclosed that he was in a
methadone maintenance program at the time he
applied); the defendant also requires a
confidential medical waiver that seeks disability-
related information.
Hiring: The defendant refused to hire anyone who
tested positive on a pre-employment drug test
without regard to the reason for the positive
result.
Filed: September 27, 1995
Resolved: November 7, 1996: Settlement agreement providing
for $7,000 in compensatory damages to the charging
party and requiring the defendant to refrain from
disability-related pre-employment inquiries.
Contact: Phoenix District Office (602) 640-2362
EEOC v. AMS Properties, Inc., Civil Action No. 95-WY-1585
(D. Col.)
Issues: Reasonable Accommodation: The defendant refused
to accommodate the charging party's disability
(congenitally defective left arm) by forcing her
to perform non-essential typing duties.
Retaliation: The defendant retaliated against the
charging party for requesting reasonable
accommodation by subjecting her to disciplinary
actions.
Termination: The defendant constructively
discharged the charging party by making conditions
of her employment so intolerable she was forced to
resign.
Filed: June 23, 1995
Resolved: December 27, 1995: Consent decree providing
65,000 for one individual as payment for personal
injuries, including emotional distress.
Contact: Denver District Office (303) 866-1380
EEOC v. American Pacific Alarms, Inc., Civil Action No.
CIV95-1849PHX RGS (D. Ariz.)
Issue: Termination: The defendant terminated the
charging party because of his age (65) and his
disability (cancer of the tongue).
Filed: September 1, 1995
Resolved: June 28, 1996: Consent decree providing $5,000
for one individual.
Contact: Phoenix District Office (602) 640-2362
* EEOC v. Arizona Professional Towing and Recovery, Inc.,
d/b/a/ Shamrock Towing, Civil Action No. CIV95-2338PHXPGR
(D. Ariz.)
Issue: Termination: The defendant terminated the
charging party from his position as a tow truck
operator because it regarded him as an individual
with a disability (back impairment).
Filed: October 27, 1995
Resolved: February 18, 1997: Consent decree providing for
$6,066 in back pay and interest to the charging
party and training for defendant's employees.
Contact: Phoenix District Office (602) 640-2362
EEOC v. Armstrong Brothers Tool Co., a subsidiary of Danaher
Corp., Civil Action No. 4-96-276 (D. Minn.)
Issue: Termination: The defendant terminated the
charging party from his position as a sales
representative because defendant regarded charging
party as disabled and unable to drive his car
because he was an individual with epilepsy and
previously had surgery for a brain tumor.
Filed: March 29, 1996
Resolved: September 25, 1996: Consent decree providing
$27,000 in back pay and $108,000 in non-pecuniary
compensatory damages to the charging party as well
as outplacement services up to $7,500.
Contact: Milwaukee District Office (414) 297-1867
EEOC v. Arrow Concrete Co., Civil Action No. 6:94-0940 (S.D.
W.Va.)
Issue: Reasonable Accommodation: The defendant failed to
accommodate the charging party's request for
light duty job or leave of absence following
lymphoma treatment (lymphoma catheterization).
Termination: The defendant terminated the charging
party after refusing a requested accommodation.
Filed: October 26, 1994
Resolved: May 26, 1995: Settlement agreement including full
back wages and compensatory damages for the
charging party.
Contact: Philadelphia District Office (215) 451-5787
EEOC v. Atlas Processing Co., Civil Action No. CV-94-2048
(W.D. La.)
Issues: Promotion: The defendant failed to promote the
charging party from temporary to permanent
employee based on her perceived disability (carpal
tunnel syndrome).
Termination: The defendant unlawfully discharged
the charging party from her temporary position
based on her perceived disability.
Filed: November 7, 1994
Resolved: December 14, 1995: Settlement agreement providing
$12,500 in compensatory damages for one (1)
individual and injunctive relief.
Contact: New Orleans District Office (504) 589-6817
EEOC v. Bailey Excavating, Inc., Civil Action No. 94-CV-72752-DT
(E.D. Mich.)
Issue: Hiring: The defendant failed to hire the charging
party after offering employment, based on
perceived disability (back injury).
Filed: July 19, 1994
Resolved: April 25, 1995: Consent decree providing for
$35,000 in compensatory damages to the charging
party and an offer of a position for the charging
party.
Contact: Detroit District Office (313) 226-6701
* EEOC v. Baker Installations, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:97-CV-256
(E.D. Va.)
Issue: Hiring: The defendant refused to hire the
charging party as a Cable Installer because of his
disability (diabetes).
Filed: March 10, 1997
Resolved: March 10, 1997: Settlement agreement providing
$3,200 in monetary relief to the charging party.
Contact: Baltimore District Office (410) 962-4341
EEOC v. Ball Foods, Inc., d/b/a Kentucky Fried Chicken,
Civil Action No. J-C-95-68, (E.D. Ark.)
Issue: Hiring: The defendant refused to hire the
charging party because it regarded her as disabled
from an earlier back injury.
Filed: April 3, 1995
Resolved: December 7, 1995: Consent decree providing for
$2,500 to the charging party and requiring the
defendant to provide training to its managers and
supervisors on the requirements of the ADA.
Contact: Memphis District Office (901) 544-0115
EEOC v. Bentley Tool, Inc., Civil Action No. 95-70575 (E.D.
Mich.)
Issues: Reasonable Accommodation: The defendant failed to
accommodate the charging party's disability
(stress-related anxiety and depression) by denying
her request for a ninety (90) day medical leave of
absence.
Termination: The defendant terminated the charging
party because of her disability.
Filed: February 14, 1995
Resolved: May 8, 1996: Consent Decree providing $18,750 in
non-pecuniary compensatory damages for one
individual.
Contact: Detroit District Office (313) 226-6701
* EEOC v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., Civil Action No. B96-1469 (D.
Md.)
Issues: Termination: The defendant refused to allow the
charging party to return to work after a brief
medical leave of absence for a mental disability,
psychothyoria, a mild variant of main depressive
disorder characterized by mood swings. The
charging party takes medication that controls the
illness. The defendant maintains that the
charging party is unable to perform all of the
duties of the welder/carpenter position he
previously held without posing a direct threat to
his own safety and the safety of others.
Filed: May 10, 1996
Resolved: January 24, 1997: Settlement agreement providing
for $5,000 in monetary relief to the charging
party.
Contact: Baltimore District Office (410) 962-3870
EEOC v. Big Rivers Electric Corp. & International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1701, Civil Action
No. 94-0219-0 (W.D. Ky.)
Issues: Terms and Conditions: The defendant failed to
assign the full range of duties and denied
training to the charging party.
Reasonable Accommodation: The defendant failed to
accommodate the charging party's disabilities
(hearing and speech impaired).
Filed: December 5, 1994
Resolved: December 27, 1995: Settlement agreement providing
for $10,000 to the charging party in settlement of
his ADA claims, reasonable accommodations required
to allow the charging party to perform his job,
and training of defendant Big Rivers' managers and
supervisors on the requirements of the ADA.
Contact: Indianapolis District Office (317) 226-7208
* EEOC v. Bloomingdale's, Inc., Civil Action No. 4-95-507 (D.
Minn.)
Issues: Reasonable Accommodation: The defendant refused to
reasonably accommodate the charging party by
allowing her to sit on a stool 5 to 10 minutes per
hour when she became fatigued by her systemic
lupus.
Termination: The defendant refused to reasonably
accommodate charging party, resulting in working
conditions so intolerable she was forced to quit.
Filed: August 9, 1995
Resolved: January 15, 1997: Settlement agreement providing
for $75,000 in monetary relief to the charging
party and training for managers and employees
responsible for implementing the ADA.
Contact: Milwaukee District Office (414) 297-1867
EEOC v. Brandywine Convalescent Center, Civil Action No.
94-695 (E.D. Del.)
Issues: Terms and Conditions: The defendant denied the
charging party the opportunity to take leave of
absence because of her disability (chronic back
condition).
Reasonable Accommodation: The defendant failed to
make a reasonable accommodation that would have
allowed her to continue her employment.
Termination: The defendant terminated the
charging party because of her race, Black, and
because of her disability (chronic back
condition).
Filed: December 30, 1994
Resolved: August 31, 1995: Settlement agreement providing
$1,415 in back pay for the charging party and
notice posting.
Contact: Philadelphia District Office (215) 451-5787
EEOC & John Doe v. Campbell University, Inc., Civil Action
No. 5:94-CV-301-60(3) (E.D.N.C.)
Issue: Termination: The defendant terminated the
charging party because of his disability (AIDS).
Filed: April 26, 1994
Resolved: June 17, 1994: Court ordered the defendant to
continue payment of plaintiff's Doe's benefits,
including all health insurance benefits, pending a
trial on the merits.
March 30, 1995: Consent decree providing for
continued employment of the charging party,
maintenance of salary and benefits, $325,000 in
monetary compensation, attorney's fees and expert
fees. The decree also provides for AIDS awareness
and sensitivity training, as well as training on
the ADA, for all management and supervisory
personnel who participate in personnel decision-making.
Contact: Detroit District Office (313) 226-6701
EEOC v. Chandler Nursing Center, Inc., Civil Action No.
3-95V-0042T (N.D. Tex.)
Issues: Reasonable Accommodation: The defendant failed to
accommodate the charging party's disability (HIV
positive) by educating co-workers.
Termination: The defendant terminated the
charging party when it learned of the charging
party's HIV-positive status.
Filed: January 9, 1995
Resolved: April 2, 1996: Consent decree providing $40,000
in damages for the charging party and a change in
policy and training.
Contact: Dallas District Office (214) 655-3327
EEOC v. Chemtech International Corp., et al., Civil Action
No. H-94-2848 (S.D. Tex.)
Issues: Reasonable Accommodation: The defendant failed to
accommodate the charging party's disability
(AIDS).
Termination: The defendant terminated the
charging party due to his disability (AIDS).
Filed: August 17, 1994. The court denied the defendant's
motion for summary judgment on May 18, 1995
(reported at 4 AD Cases 1465).
Resolved: August 23, 1995: Agreed Order providing the
charging party with $50,000 in compensatory
damages and $50,000 additional health insurance
coverage; the defendant also agreed to provide ADA
training to its managers and to submit compliance
reports to the EEOC for four years.
Contact: Houston District Office (713) 209-3320
EEOC v. The Chrysler Corp., Civil Action No. 94-74979 (N.D.
Mich.)
Issue: Hiring: The defendant refused to hire the charging
party upon the findings of its pre-employment
medical examination because of his disability
(diabetes mellitus).
Filed: December 13, 1994
Decided: March 6, 1996: In granting EEOC's motion for
summary judgment on liability and denying the
defendant's motion for summary judgment, the court
found: that the defendant regarded the charging
party as disabled since it regarded him as having
an impairment that significantly restricted his
ability to perform either a class of jobs or a
broad range of jobs; that the defendant had failed
to show that the charging party's disability
rendered him incapable of performing his job
responsibilities and that the charging party was
qualified for the position; that the defendant had
failed to prove the charging party posed a "direct
threat" to himself or others since the defendant
relied upon mere speculation that the charging
party posed such a threat; and, that the
defendant's blanket exclusion from employment of
individuals whose blood sugar levels exceeded 140
mg/dl violated the ADA.
Contact: Detroit District Office (313) 226-6701
EEOC v. The Chrysler Corp., Civil Action Nos. 95-CV-71144-DT
and 95-CV-73035-DT (E.D. Mich.)
Issues: Limiting, Segregating, and/or Classifying: The
charging parties Morrow (tendinitis), Pham (back
injury), and Welsh (hip replacement) were denied
the opportunity to work overtime because of their
disabilities.
Reasonable Accommodation: The defendant failed to
accommodate the charging party Welsh's disability.
Terms and Conditions: The defendant denied
overtime to charging parties because of their
disabilities.
Hostile Work Environment: The defendant allowed
derogatory language to be used in reference to
employees with disabilities, thereby tolerating a
hostile work environment.
Filed: March 22, 1995
Resolved: June 10, 1996: Consent decree providing $10,000
each to two individuals.
Contact: Detroit District Office (313) 226-6701
EEOC v. CNA Insurance Companies, et al., Civil Action No. 95
C 5835 (E.D. Ill.)
Issue: Disability Benefits: The defendant was to cease
payment of long term disability benefits to the
charging party, effective November 6, 1995. After
the Commission filed its complaint for preliminary
relief, the defendant agreed to continue the
charging party's long term disability benefits
pending a resolution of the defendant's motion for
summary judgment. The defendants maintain a long
term disability policy that limits benefits for
individuals with mental or nervous disabilities to
24 months, while paying benefits to persons with
other disabilities until they reach the age of 65.
Filed: October 11, 1995: Complaint and Application for
Preliminary Relief.
Decided: January 19, 1996: Trial court granted summary
judgment to the defendants on the ground that a
recipient of benefits under an employer's long
term disability policy is not a qualified
individual with a disability for purposes of
coverage under the ADA and dismissed EEOC's
Application for Preliminary Injunction. On
February 28, 1996, the Commission appealed the
trial court's grant of CNA's motion for summary
judgment. (See Appellate Docket, below.)
Contact: Chicago District Office (312) 353-8551
EEOC v. Columbia Aluminum Recycling, Ltd., Civil Action No.
94-C-00301 (N.D. Ill.)
Issues: Hiring: The defendant revoked an offer of
employment because of the charging party's record
of disability or perceived disability (seizures).
Confidentiality: The defendant violated
confidentiality provisions by failing to keep the
charging party's medical records separate from his
employee personnel file.
Filed: January 18, 1994
Resolved: August 4, 1994: Consent decree providing for
$26,285.68 in back and front pay, $23,714.32 in
damages and pre-judgment interest, and training on
the ADA for defendant's managers.
Contact: Chicago District Office (312) 353-8551
EEOC v. Community Coffee Co., Inc., Civil Action No. H-94-1061
(S.D. Tex.)
Issues: Hiring: The defendant refused to hire the
charging party on the basis of his disabilities
(facial disfigurement, visual and hearing
impairments).
Disability-Related Inquiries: The defendant posed
disability-related inquiries to the charging party
during its interview process.
Filed: March 30, 1994
Decided: June 29, 1995: Jury awarded the charging party
$15,000 in compensatory damages and $30,000 in
punitive damages against the defendant because of
unlawful pre-offer inquiries about the nature and
severity of his disability. The jury also found
that the charging party's disability did not
motivate defendant's rejection of his application
for employment. After trial, the judge entered
judgment on the compensatory damages, but granted
Defendant's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law
and set aside the punitive damages award.
Contact: Houston District Office (713) 209-3320
EEOC v. Cooper Industries, Inc., d/b/a Maryville Forge,
Civil Action No. 95-6021-CV-53-6 (W.D. Mo.)
Issues: Hiring: The defendant refused to hire the
charging party Clements because of his record of
disability (brain cancer).
Termination: The defendant terminated charging
party Brodrick because of her record of disability
(carpal tunnel syndrome).
Disability-Related Inquiries: The Defendant's
pre-employment application and screening process
included disability-related inquiries.
Filed: January 18, 1995
Resolved: September 5, 1995: Consent decree providing for
the payment of a total of $56,128.68 to the two
aggrieved individuals and for defendant to revise
its employment application to remove disability-related
questions.
Contact: St. Louis District Office (314) 539-7800
EEOC v. DEF Express, Inc., Civil Action No. CV-F-95-5889-REC
DLB (E.D. Cal.)
Issue: Termination: The defendant terminated and/or
refused to reinstate the charging party to his
truck driver position because of his disability
(HIV-positive).
Filed: October 23, 1995
Resolved: August 13, 1996: Settlement agreement providing
for $20,000 in compensatory damages to the
charging party (who had been reinstated after he
filed his charge of discrimination).
Contact: San Francisco District Office (415) 356-5084
EEOC v. Detroit Radiator Corp., Civil Action No. 95-78401(PD) (
E.D. Mich.)
Issue: Termination: The defendant terminated the
charging party because of his actual or perceived
disability (blood disorder).
Filed: August 23, 1995
Resolved: September 6, 1996: Consent decree providing the
charging party with $18,000 in monetary relief and
requiring training for upper management and
personnel officials.
Contact: Detroit District Office (313) 226-6701
EEOC v. The Dial Corp., Civil Action No. 4:95CV01726LOD
(E.D. Mo.)
Issues: Reasonable Accommodation: The defendant failed to
make any reasonable accommodation to the charging
party's known disability (impairment kept
confidential).
Terms and Conditions: The defendant suspended the
charging party from work on two occasions because
of his disability.
Filed: September 13, 1995
Resolved: October 6, 1995: Settlement agreement providing
John Doe with $44,000 as compensatory damages.
Contact: St. Louis District Office (314) 539-7800
* EEOC v. Dolphin Cruise Line, Inc., Civil Action No. 95-292
(S.D. Fla.)
Issue: Hiring: The defendant refused to hire the
charging party because of HIV-positive results on
a pre-employment (post offer) physical exam.
Filed: February 15, 1995
Resolved: October 30, 1996: Consent decree providing the
charging party with $5,850 in back pay and $9,150
in compensatory damages and providing for training
in the ADA and Title VII for the defendant's
managers.
Contact: Miami District Office (305) 536-4491
* EEOC v. FFV Aerotech Co., Civil Action No. 3-95-0622 (M.D.
Tenn.)
Issue: Hiring: The defendant failed to hire the charging
party because of his disability (hearing
impaired).
Filed: June 26, 1995
Resolved: December 2, 1996: Consent decree providing
$12,000 in monetary relief to the charging party
and expungement of any adverse personnel comments
in his personnel records.
Contact: Memphis District Office (901) 544-0115
* EEOC v. Furniture Fair, Inc., Civil Action No. 4:95-CV-49-H3
(E.D.N.C.)
Issues: Reasonable Accommodation: The defendant failed to
accommodate the charging party's disability
(paralysis of right arm and chronic pain) by
reducing his hours from full to part-time.
Termination: The defendant terminated the charging
party because he had requested a work schedule
adjustment as a reasonable accommodation.
Filed: May 22, 1995
Resolved: October 2, 1996: Consent decree providing for
expungement from the charging party's employment
records of all references to this claim, training
for all management and personnel staff, and
reports on all requests for accommodation.
Contact: Charlotte District Office (704) 344-6682
* EEOC v. G & M Foods, Inc., d/b/a McDonald's, Civil Action
No. 3:96 CV-318-S (W.D. Ky.)
Issues: Harassment: The defendant harassed the charging
party because of his disability (cerebral palsy).
Reasonable Accommodation: The defendant failed to
accommodate the charging party's disability.
Termination: The defendant terminated the
charging party because of his disability.
Filed: May 6, 1996
Resolved: November 26, 1996: Consent decree providing the
charging party with $20,000 in compensatory and
punitive damages.
Contact: Indianapolis District Office (317) 226-7949
EEOC, et al. v. Gabbard & Co., Inc., Civil Action No.
94-CV-72976 DT (E.D. Mich.; (civil action number for consolidated
state court action is State of Michigan Circuit Court for
Oakland, No. 93-468197-CZ)
Issues: Disability-Related Inquiries: The defendant's pre-employment application contained disability-related inquiries.
Reasonable Accommodation: The defendant failed to
accommodate the charging party's disability
(cancer) by refusing his request for a medical
leave of absence to receive treatment.
Reinstatement: The defendant failed to reinstate
the charging party.
Termination: The defendant terminated the
charging party because of his medical leave of
absence for cancer treatment.
Filed: August 4, 1994
Decided: September 11, 1995: Favorable jury verdict.
Judgment entered October 25, 1995 in favor of
Heidi Monti as Executrix of the Estate of Frank
Monti and EEOC in the amount of $72,631, including
$22,163 in back pay and $50,000 in compensatory
damages and related damages.
Contact: Detroit District Office (313) 226-6701
EEOC v. The Gage Co., Civil Action No. 94-CV-72089-DT (E.D.
Mich.)
Issues: Reasonable Accommodation: The defendant failed to
accommodate the charging party's disability (AIDS)
by refusing to reinstate him to a comparable
position.
Termination: The defendant terminated the
charging party because of his disability.
Limiting, Segregating, and/or Classifying: The
defendant denied individuals with AIDS equal
access to medical benefits.
Health Insurance Coverage: The defendant placed a
$ 5,000 lifetime cap on medical coverage for AIDS-
related treatment; all other catastrophic illnesses
carry a $1 million cap.
Filed: May 27, 1994
Resolved: July 11, 1994: Consent decree, which provides,
among other relief, that the defendant pay
$100,000 to the charging party's discretionary
trust. The defendant eliminated the $5,000
benefits cap with respect to AIDS-related
illnesses. Other affirmative relief also
provided.
Contact: Detroit District Office (313) 226-4647
EEOC v. Gayatri, Inc., d/b/a Instrumatics, Civil Action No.
1:94-CV-1147 (N.D. Ohio)
Issues: Hiring: The defendant denied the charging party
an interview on the basis of a perceived
disability (walked w/limp and overweight)
Record Keeping: The defendant failed to make
and/or preserve records that were relevant to the
determination of unlawful employment practices.
Filed: June 3, 1994
Resolved: April 13, 1995: Settlement filed which included
payment of $7,500 in monetary damages, an
agreement by defendant not to discriminate against
any applicant because the applicant has a
disability or is regarded as disabled.
Contact: Cleveland District Office (216) 522-7455
* EEOC v. Gencorp Automotive, Civil Action No. 3:95CV0778AS
(N.D. Ind.)
Issue: Termination: The defendant terminated the charging
party from his millwright position because of his
disability (injury to foot and ankle resulting in
difficulty walking).
Filed: September 26, 1995
Resolved: December 6, 1996: Settlement agreement providing
for $60,000 in monetary relief to the charging
party and for free health insurance coverage for
the charging party and his family for 18 months.
Contact: Indianapolis District Office (317) 226-7208
EEOC v. General Motors Corp., Civil Action No. 94-73888
(E.D. Mich.)
Issue: Reinstatement: The defendant refused to reinstate
the charging party after medical leave for knee
surgery because of his disability (carpal tunnel
syndrome and knee injury).
Filed: September 27, 1994
Resolved: August 7, 1995: Settlement Agreement including
$49,500 in monetary relief for the charging party.
Contact: Detroit District Office (313) 226-6701
EEOC v. Georgia Pacific Corp., Civil Action No. 94-4129
(W.D. Ark.)
Issue: Promotion: The defendant failed to promote the
charging party due to his disability (multiple
pulmonary thromboembolism).
Filed: November 21, 1994
Resolved: January 23, 1996: Consent decree providing for
$7,500 in damages to the charging party and an
injunction baring the defendant from failing to
promote qualified individuals because of
disability.
Contact: Memphis District Office (901) 544-0115
* EEOC v. Georgia Pacific Corp. & Int'l Woodworkers of America
Local 5-475, Civil Action No. 95-1035 (W.D. Ark.)
Issues: Reasonable Accommodation: The defendant failed to
accommodate the charging party's disability
(epilepsy).
Promotion: The defendant failed to promote the
charging party because of his disability.
Filed: April 21, 1995
Resolved: December 9, 1996: Consent decree providing the
charging party $10,000 in back pay, interest and
compensatory damages as well as expungement of
adverse personnel comments from his personnel
records.
Contact: Memphis District Office (901) 544-0115
* EEOC v. Glenn View Manor, Inc., d/b/a Glenview Manor Nursing
Home, Civil Action No. 4:96CV 0849 (N.D. Ohio)
Issue: Disability-Related Inquiries: The defendant uses
an employment application containing pre-employment
inquiries that violate the ADA.
Filed: April 25, 1996
Resolved: March 27, 1997: Consent decree confirming the
defendant's recision of its policy of asking
applicants whether they are physically and
mentally capable of performing the job.
Contact: Cleveland District Office (216) 522-7675
* EEOC v. Greyhound Lines, Civil Action No. 95-C-652 (E.D.
Wis.)
Issue: Reasonable Accommodation: The defendant failed to
accommodate charging party's disability (carpal
tunnel syndrome) by refusing to let him return to
work as a bus driver under a revised work
schedule.
Filed: June 16, 1995
Resolved: January 30, 1997: Consent decree providing the
charging party with $10,000 in back pay and
$10,000 in compensatory damages.
Contact: Milwaukee District Office (414) 297-1111
EEOC v. Guardsmark, Inc., Civil Action No. 3:94CV660LN (S.D.
Miss.)
Issues: Disability-Related Inquiries: The defendant made
pre-employment inquiries regarding applicants'
disabilities.
Termination: The defendant terminated the
charging party because of his disability (insulin-
dependent diabetes).
Filed: November 7, 1994
Resolved: October 10, 1995: Settlement agreement providing
for the payment of $50,000 in total relief. The
charging party received $25,000 in back pay and
compensatory damages and a designated educational
institution to receive the other $25,000 as a
scholarship fund for training of persons with
disabilities.
Contact: Birmingham District Office (205) 731-2067
EEOC v. Gulf Grinding Co., Inc. d/b/a Gulf Precision
Industries, Inc., Civil Action No. H-95-0382 (S.D. Tex.)
Issues: Reasonable Accommodation: The defendant failed to
accommodate the charging party's disability (AIDS)
by denying his requests for a cool work
environment and reduced hours.
Termination: The defendant terminated the
charging party because of his disability.
Confidentiality: The defendant disclosed the
charging party's disability to his co-workers and
had them vote on whether the charging party should
remain as an employee (they voted him "out").
Filed: February 9, 1995
Resolved: July 10, 1995: Consent decree provides $65,000 in
compensatory damages, training of management
staff, maintaining confidentiality of medical
files and information, and posting a notice. The
consent decree was the result of mediation.
Contact: Houston District Office (713) 209-3320
* EEOC v. Heraeus-Amersil, Inc., Civil Action No. 95-3106(DRD)
(D.N.J.)
Issue: Termination: The defendant terminated the
charging party from his position as a glassblower
because of his age (64) and disability (cancer).
Filed: June 30, 1995
Resolved: October 21, 1996: Settlement agreement providing
for $8,500 in back pay to the charging party.
Contact: Philadelphia District Office (215) 451-5787
EEOC v. Herzog Stone Products, Inc., Civil Action No. 94-2016
(W.D. Ark.)
Issues: Hiring: The defendant failed to hire the charging
party (post offer) based on a record of disability
(back surgery) and because the defendant regarded
the charging party as disabled.
Disability-Related Inquiries: As part of its
application process, the defendant made
disability-related inquiries, conducted medical
examinations and asked medical questions.
Filed: January 31, 1994
Resolved: February 4, 1994: Consent decree providing the
charging party with $5,000 in back pay and
interest.
Contact: Memphis District Office (901) 544-0115
EEOC v. Hillcrest Living Center, Civil Action No. 95-CV-72873DT
(E.D. Mich.)
Issues: Reasonable Accommodation: The defendant failed to
accommodate the charging party's disability
(contact dermatitis).
Termination: The defendant terminated the
charging party based on her disability.
Filed: July 18, 1995
Resolved: August 7, 1996: Settlement agreement providing
the charging party with $12,000 in back pay and
reinstatement; also providing for training and
confidentiality of medical information.
Contact: Detroit District Office (313) 226-6701
EEOC v. Hirschfield Sons Co. d/b/a Hirschfield Steel Center,
Civil Action No. 93-CV-10259-BC (E.D. Mich.)
Issue: Termination: The defendant terminated the
charging party after he took approved medical
leave of absence to undergo back surgery. The
defendant refused to allow him to return to work
based on his perceived disability (back
impairment).
Filed: September 3, 1993
Resolved: April 25, 1995: Settlement agreement providing
for monetary relief of $25,000 and reinstatement
with full benefits for the charging party.
Contact: Detroit District Office (313) 226-4647
* EEOC v. Hook-Up, Inc., Civil Action No. 96-CV-3136 (E.D.
Pa.)
Issues: Reasonable Accommodation: The defendant refused
to consider any reasonable accommodation for
charging party's disability (degenerative back
disease).
Reinstatement: After a work-related injury, the
defendant refused to reinstate the charging party
to his position as a shuttle driver even though
his physician had released him to return with only
a 15-pound lifting restriction.
Filed: April 22, 1996
Resolved: January 3, 1997: Settlement agreement providing
for $15,000 in monetary relief to the charging
party.
Contact: Philadelphia District Office (215) 451-5787
EEOC v. Indiana Fineblanking Division of MPI International,
Inc., Civil Action No. 3:93-CV-0849-RM (N.D. Ind.)
Issues: Termination: The defendant terminated the
charging party because of a perceived disability
(carpal tunnel syndrome).
Confidentiality: The defendant violated
confidentiality provisions in failing to maintain
information regarding the medical history or
condition of applicants and employees in separate
medical files as required by ADA.
Filed: December 9, 1993
Resolved: November 9, 1994: Settlement agreement providing
for $15,000 in damages.
Contact: Indianapolis District Office (317) 226-7208
Estate of Mark Kadinger, et. al. & EEOC v. International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, et al., Civil Action No.
3-93-159 (D. Minn.)
Issues: Limiting, Segregating, and/or Classifying: The
defendant denied aggrieved individual with AIDS
equal access to medical benefits.
Health Insurance Coverage: The defendants placed
a $ 50,000 lifetime cap on medical coverage for
AIDS-related treatment; all other catastrophic
illnesses carry a $ 500,000 cap.
Filed: By the Plaintiff Estate March 17, 1993; by EEOC
December 21, 1993
Resolved: December 21, 1993: Consent decree entered whereby
the defendants paid the estate of Mr. Kadinger
$100,000 for reimbursement of medical expenses not
otherwise covered by the challenged plan and
agreed to amend the plan retroactively to July 26,
1992 and eliminate the $50,000 cap on health-care
benefits for AIDS-related illnesses and
treatments.
Contact: Minneapolis Area Office (612) 335-4061
EEOC v. John Ascuaga's Nugget Casino, Civil Action No.
N-95-00016-ECR (D. Nev.)
Issues: Limiting, Segregating, and/or Classifying: The
defendant unlawfully limited individuals with AIDS
by denying them equal access to medical benefits
by providing them or causing them to be provided
lesser and different medical benefits,
compensation, and other terms and conditions of
employment.
Health Insurance Coverage: The defendant
maintained a health insurance policy that singled
out for exclusion from the plan AIDS-related
treatments.
Filed: January 10, 1995
Resolved: January 31, 1995: Suit for preliminary injunctive
relief settled and application for TRO dismissed.
The defendant agreed to change its policy and pay
the charging party's medical bills.
Contact: Los Angeles District Office (213) 894-1083
EEOC v. Joslyn Manufacturing Company, Civil Action No.
95-C-4956 (N.D. Ill.)
Issue: Hiring: The defendant withdrew its offer of
employment when it learned, through a post offer
physical examination, that the charging party had
surgeries for carpal tunnel syndrome and allegedly
did not pass a tinnel test.
Filed: August 29, 1995
Resolved: August 16, 1996: Consent decree providing $15,000
in back pay and $15,000 in compensatory damages to
the charging party; ADA training to all hiring
personnel; and requiring the defendant before
rejecting an applicant based on the results of a
medical exam to advise him/her of the reasons and
allow for the submission of additional
information.
Contact: Chicago District Office (312) 353-8551
EEOC v. Kinney Shoe Corporation, Civil Action No. 94-0069-H
(W.D. Va.)
Issues: Reasonable Accommodation: The defendant failed to
accommodate the charging party's disability
(epilepsy) by refusing to monitor the charging
party's seizures and provide simple alternatives
to job related tasks.
Termination: The defendant terminated the
charging party due to the frequency of his
epileptic seizures and from fear of customer
reaction.
Filed: September 28, 1994
Decided: February 14, 1996: Trial court, in granting the
defendant's motion for summary judgment and
denying EEOC's motion for partial summary
judgment, held that there did not exist a genuine
issue of material fact as to whether the charging
party was subjected to unlawful discrimination
because of his disability.
Status: Appealed. (See Appellate Docket, below.)
Contact: Baltimore District Office (410) 962-3870
John Doe & EEOC v. Kohn Nast & Graf, et al., Civil Action
No. 93-CV-4510 (E.D. Pa.)
Issues: Disability-Related Inquiries: The defendant
required the charging party to disclose medical
information regarding his disability (HIV
positive).
Confidentiality: The defendant violated the
confidentiality provisions of the ADA in failing
to maintain information regarding the medical
history or condition of applicants and employees
in separate medical files as required by ADA.
Termination: The defendant terminated the
charging party based on his disability.
Terms and Conditions: The defendant denied
disability benefits to the charging party due to
his disability.
Retaliation: The defendant retaliated against the
charging party for opposing unlawful employment
practices.
Hostile Work Environment: The defendant created a
hostile work environment.
Filed: Motion to Intervene filed February 23, 1994;
granted March 7, 1994
Resolved: October 31, 1994: Confidential settlement
agreement (fourth week of trial) among John Does
and the defendant. In a separate stipulation of
Settlement of Dismissal entered into by EEOC and
the defendant, the defendant agreed not to engage
in employment practices constituting unlawful
disability-based discrimination, not to retaliate
against anyone because they exercised their rights
under the ADA and agreed to post a notice at its
offices regarding the protection provided by the
ADA.
Contact: Philadelphia District Office (215) 451-5787
* EEOC v. Knoll North America, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:95-CV-174
(W.D. Mich.)
Issue: Reinstatement: The defendant refused to reinstate
the charging party because of weight
restrictions placed on him by his doctor due to
his disability (tendinitis).
Filed: March 22, 1995
Decided: August 15, 1996: Court order denying motion for
reconsideration of the court's grant of summary
judgment to defendant on May 2, 1996.
Status: Appeal filed on October 4, 1996.
Contact: Detroit District Office (313) 226-6701
EEOC v. Laborers District Council Building & Construction
Health & Welfare Fund, Civil Action No. 94-CV-3971 (E.D.
Pa.)
Issues: Health Insurance Coverage: The defendants placed
a $10,000 lifetime cap on medical coverage for
AIDS-related treatment; all other catastrophic
illnesses carry a $100,000 cap.
Limiting, Segregating, and/or Classifying: The
defendant denied individuals with AIDS equal
access to medical benefits by providing them or
causing them to be provided with lesser and
different medical benefits, compensation, and
other terms and conditions of employment.
Filed: June 27, 1994
Resolved: January 5, 1995: Consent decree entered, whereby
the defendant fund paid $42,500 to charging party
Doe and paid $1,209 in medical bills for a second
charging party. The defendant dropped its $10,000
lifetime cap for HIV/AIDS-related illnesses and
agreed not to refuse to provide health insurance
to current or potential fund participants on the
basis of HIV/AIDS-related disease. Plan
participants will receive notice of the removal of
the cap.
Contact: Philadelphia District Office (215) 451-5787
EEOC v. Lake Region Mfg., Civil Action No. 3-95-509 (D.
Minn.)
Issues: Reasonable Accommodation: The defendant failed to
accommodate the charging party's disability (back
impairment).
Termination: The defendant revoked its job offer
as a result of the charging party's disability.
Filed: June 1, 1995
Resolved: June 28, 1996: Consent decree providing for
$14,000 in back pay and $56,000 in non-pecuniary
compensatory damages to the charging party.
Contact: Milwaukee District Office (414) 297-1111
EEOC v. Lee Data Corp., Civil Action No. CV94-3875MRP (C.D.
Cal.)
Issue: Health Insurance Coverage: The defendant placed a
$100,000 lifetime cap for AIDS treatment; all
other illnesses carry $1 million cap (except
neonatal $500,000 and mental/alcohol/chemical
$25,000).
Filed: June 9, 1994
Resolved: October 5, 1995 Stipulation for Settlement; Order
providing $120,000.25 for one individual.
Contact: Los Angeles District Office (213) 894-1083
EEOC v. Litco Petroleum, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:94-CV-280-D-D
(N.D. Miss.)
Issues: Reasonable Accommodation: The defendant failed to
accommodate the charging party's disability
(scoliosis) by denying her request that she not
work the third shift.
Termination: The defendant terminated the
charging party due to her request for
accommodation and in retaliation for same.
Retaliation: The defendant retaliated against the
charging party for requesting a reasonable
accommodation.
Disability-Related Inquiries: The defendant's
pre-employment applications contained inquiries
regarding medical/disability histories.
Filed: September 28, 1994
Resolved: August 8, 1995: Consent decree providing $12,000
in back pay, interest and compensatory damages for
one individual.
Contact: Birmingham District Office (205) 731-2067
EEOC v. Lowe's Home Centers, Civil Action No. 2-95-CV-242
(E.D. Tenn.)
Issues: Reasonable Accommodation: The defendant refused
to accommodate the charging party.
Termination: The defendant discharged the
charging party because of her disabilities
(asthma, Von Hippel Syndrome and cancer).
Filed: June 26, 1995
Resolved: May 17, 1996: Settlement agreement providing
$18,000 in monetary relief.
Contact: Memphis District Office (901) 544-0115
* EEOC v. M. A. Hanna Resin Distribution Company, Civil Action
No. 396CV0443-X (N.D. Tex.)
Issues: Disability-related Inquiries: The defendant
required the charging party to take a physical
examination before making an offer of employment.
Termination: The defendant refused to hire the
charging party as a Development Engineer because
of his disabilities (cystic fibrosis and type 1
diabetes).
Filed: February 14, 1996
Resolved: December 20, 1996: Settlement agreement
eliminating the defendant's policy of requiring
applicants to undergo pre-offer medical
examinations and providing the charging party with
$167,500 in monetary relief.
Contact: Dallas District Office (214) 655-3327
EEOC v. Mason Tenders Welfare Trust Fund, et al., Civil
Action No. 93-Civ-1154-JES (S.D. N.Y.) [state declaratory
action]; Civil Action No. 93-Civ-3865 (JES) (S.D. N.Y.)
Issue: Health Insurance Coverage: The defendants
maintained health care plans which exclude medical
coverage for HIV, ARC, and AIDS treatments.
Filed: Fund and other defendants previously filed
declaratory action seeking court decision holding
plan provision lawful. (EEOC filed amicus brief in
this declaratory action. (See Appellate Docket,
below.)
June 9, 1993 EEOC filed direct suit.
Resolved: January 22, 1996: Consent decree whereby the
defendant fund agreed to comply with the ADA with
regard to disability discrimination in providing
health care benefits to persons with AIDS-related
conditions. As of March 1, 1995, the defendant
fund rescinded the exclusion from coverage of
treatment for opportunistic infections, diseases
and neoplasms resulting from AIDS-related
conditions. The fund also agreed to pay up to
$500,000 for out-of-pocket expenses that fund
participants had to pay for AIDS-related
treatments and up to $50,000 in emotional distress
damages to each person adversely affected by
defendants' discriminatory practices. Consent
decree with the defendant fund appears in 241
D.L.R (BNA)A-9, E-10.
Contact: New York District Office (212) 748-8493
EEOC v. Mercy Health Promotion, Inc., d/b/a Mercy Care
Center, Civil Action No. 95-6218-TH (D. Or.)
Issue: Hiring: The defendant withdrew its offer of
employment due to the charging party's perceived
disability (scoliosis).
Filed: July 17, 1995
Resolved: June 28, 1996: Settlement agreement providing ADA
training for supervisory staff.
Contact: Seattle District Office (206) 220-6906
* EEOC v. Metro Traffic Control, Inc. & Southern Benefits
Services, Inc., Civil Action No. 95-Civ-0278 AGS (S.D.N.Y.)
Issue: Health Insurance Coverage: The defendant limited
medical coverage for AIDS and/or related illnesses
to $50,000 (later $75,000); all other catastrophic
illnesses had a $1,000,000 cap.
Filed: January 18, 1995
Resolved: April 11, 1997: Consent decree providing $50,000
to the estate of the charging party and confirming
the removal of the cap on AIDS and related
illnesses and making benefits for those illnesses
equal to the benefits for other catastrophic
illnesses.
Contact: New York District Office (212) 748-8493
* EEOC v. Microchip Technology, Inc., Civil Action No. 95-1387PHXROS
(D. Ariz.)
Issue: Hiring: The defendant withdrew its offer of
employment to the charging party because of her
disability, a shoulder impairment, that was
discovered during a post-offer medical
examination.
Filed: July 10, 1995
Resolved: February 7, 1997: Consent decree and final order
providing for $10,000 in back pay and $40,000 in
compensatory damages to the charging party.
Contact: Phoenix District Office (602) 640-2362
EEOC & Johnson v. Monroe Foods, Inc. et al., Civil Action
No. Y93-2925 (D. Md.)
Issues: Limiting, Segregating, and/or Classifying: The
defendant denied individuals with AIDS equal
access to medical benefits by providing them or
causing them to be provided with lesser and
different medical benefits, compensation, and
other terms and conditions of employment.
Health Insurance Coverage: The defendant
discriminated against the charging party and other
employees by denying them health insurance
coverage for treatments associated with being HIV-
positive or having ARC or AIDS.
Filed: October 7, 1993
Resolved: August 16, 1994: Partial consent decree entered
into by EEOC, defendant union and defendant health
and welfare fund providing for the payment of
$85,853.96 to plaintiff intervenor Johnson and for
elimination of the challenged benefits provision
excluding payment for medical attention provided
as a result of an AIDS-related illness.
November 28, 1994: Consent decree with remaining
defendant-employers was entered enjoining and
restraining from: engaging in a contractual or
other arrangement which denies health or medical
benefits to employees with AIDS, ARC or HIV; and,
retaliating against any person because of their
exercise of rights protected by the ADA.
Defendant-employers also agreed to pay $5,000 to
plaintiff intervenor Johnson.
Contact: Baltimore District Office (410) 962-3872
EEOC v. Monsanto Co. & Chevron Chemical Corp., Civil Action
No. 4:94-CV-1152 (E.D. Mo.)
Issues: Limiting, Segregating, and/or Classifying: The
defendants limited the charging party's employment
opportunities because of his disability (brain
tumor).
Termination: The defendants terminated the
charging party due to his disability.
Hiring: The defendants failed to hire one charging
party because of his disability.
Record Keeping: The defendants failed to make
and/or preserve records that were relevant to the
determination of unlawful employment practices.
Filed: March 29, 1995
Resolved: June 10, 1996: Consent decree providing $18,250
($9,125 in back and front pay and $9,125 in
non-pecuniary compensatory damages).
Contact: St. Louis District Office (314) 539-7800
EEOC v. Necessary & Son Construction Co. d/b/a Necessary &
Son Construction Company, Civil Action No. 94-5146 (W.D.
Ark.)
Issues: Reasonable Accommodation: The defendant failed to
accommodate the charging party's disability
(crushed ankle and lower leg) by requiring him to
operate certain piece of equipment.
Termination: The defendant terminated the
charging party when the charging party refused to
operate certain piece of equipment because of his
disability.
Filed: September 13, 1994
Resolved: March 7, 1995: Consent decree awarding $6,832.63
in back pay and $3,167.37 in compensatory damages
to the charging party and enjoining the defendant
from discriminating on the basis of disability.
Contact: Memphis District Office (901) 544-0115
* EEOC v. Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co., Civil
Action No. 4.96CV47, (E.D. Va)
Issues: Reasonable Accommodation: The defendant failed to
accommodate charging party's disability (HIV) by
moving him from a work environment that was free
of airborne materials to a work environment that
contained airborne materials (molds and fungi)
which weakened his already suppressed immune
system and caused medical complications.
Forced Medical Leave: The defendant placed the
charging party on short-term disability.
Filed: April 8, 1996
Decided: November 4, 1996: Court granted the defendant's
motion for summary judgment.
Contact: Baltimore District Office (410) 962-4207
EEOC v. North Jackson Hotel Properties, Inc., d/b/a Ramada
Renaissance, Civil Action No. 3:95-CV-474-BrN (S.D. Miss.)
Issues: Forced Medical Leave: The defendant subjected the
charging party to involuntary leave because of his
disability (epilepsy).
Demotion: The defendant demoted the charging
party because of his disability.
Reasonable Accommodation: The defendant failed to
reasonably accommodate the charging party's
disability.
Termination: The defendant terminated the
charging party because of his disability.
Filed: July 7, 1995
Resolved: June 19, 1996: Consent decree providing $3,000 as
compensatory damages for the charging party
Contact: Birmingham District Office (205) 731-2067
EEOC v. North Memorial Medical Center, Civil Action No. 3-95-250
(D. Minn.)
Issue: Hiring: The defendant failed to hire the charging
party as a paramedic because of his perceived
disability (back injury) after a pre-employment
exam (post-offer) revealed that the charging party
could lift at the level required for the position,
but the employer questioned whether the charging
party would be able to lift significantly in
excess of that range without posing a direct
threat to himself or employer's patients.
Filed: March 17, 1995
Resolved: April 26, 1996: Consent decree providing $30,000
in resolution of all claims ($4,000 was designated
as payment in lieu of wages and $26,000 was paid
for past and future nonpecuniary loses, including
emotional pain and suffering).
Contact: Milwaukee District Office (414) 297-1867
EEOC v. Pinnacle Holdings, Inc., d/b/a Villa Ocotillo, Civil
Action No. CIV-95-0708-PHX RGS (D. Ariz.)
Issues: Reasonable Accommodation: The defendant failed to
accommodate the charging party's disability
(hearing impairment) by failing to consider or
analyze any type of accommodation.
Termination: The defendant fired the charging
party because she could not hear the intercom.
Disability-Related Inquiries: The defendant
included disability-related inquiries in its pre-
employment interview of the charging party.
Filed: April 7, 1995
Resolved: October 24, 1995: Consent decree providing the
charging party with $15,000 in compensatory
damages, a letter of apology and requiring
training on disability discrimination in the
workplace.
Contact: Phoenix District Office (602) 640-2499
EEOC v. P.M.K. Corp. d/b/a Cost Cutters of Austin, Civil
Action No. A-94-CA-584-JN (W.D. Tex.)
Issue: Termination: The defendant terminated the
charging party when it became aware of her
disability (HIV positive) and because it regarded
her as disabled.
Filed: August 24, 1994
Resolved: December 19, 1994: Consent decree providing the
charging party with $30,000 in monetary relief.
Contact: San Antonio District Office (210) 229-4843
EEOC & Doris Scott v. Potlatch Corp., Civil Action No.
PB-C-93-647 (E.D. Ark.)
Issue: Termination: The defendant terminated the
charging party because the defendant regarded her
as having a disability (fainting spells).
Filed: October 15, 1993
Decided: August 23, 1994: Jury verdict. September 6,
1994: judgment entered. Jury found for the
plaintiffs and awarded $1,308.96 in back pay and
$20,000 in compensatory damages for the charging
party. The court granted the EEOC's request for
reinstatement and injunctive relief.
Contact: Memphis District Office (901) 544-0115
EEOC v. Potlatch Corp., et al., Civil Action No.
CIV95-0301-N-EJL (D. Idaho)
Issue: Hiring: The defendant withdrew a conditional
offer of hire based on the charging party's
disability, her record of disability or her
perceived disability (history of migraine
headaches).
Filed: August 7, 1995
Resolved: May 21, 1996: Consent decree providing $37,000 in
back pay, attorney's fees, interest and personal
injury damages; injunctive relief to include
distribution of EEOC brochure to all applicants,
three hours of ADA training for personnel staff,
posting, and twice yearly reporting to EEOC with
regard to disabled applicants who were not hired.
Contact: Seattle District Office (206) 220-6879
EEOC v. Preferred Hose and Coupling, A Division of Preferred
Technical Group, Inc., Civil Action No. 95-0120-C H/H (S.D.
Ind.)
Issues: Reasonable Accommodation: The defendant failed to
reasonably accommodate the charging party's
disability (back impairment).
Termination: The defendant constructively
discharged the charging party.
Filed: July 3, 1995
Resolved: April 23, 1996: Consent decree requiring the
defendant to pay the charging party $15,000 in
compensatory damages and to provide a neutral
reference.
Contact: Indianapolis District Office (317) 226-7208
EEOC v. Premier Pacific Seafoods, Inc., Civil Action No.
C95-1552 (W.D. Wash.)
Issue: Hiring: The defendant withdrew its offer to
employ the charging party as a fish processor on
one of its factory ships when it learned of the
charging party's disability (insulin dependent
diabetes) during a post-offer medical examination.
Filed: October 10, 1995
Resolved: April 26, 1996: Consent decree providing
$5,515.07 in back pay for one individual.
Contact: Seattle District Office (206) 220-6906
* EEOC v. Prevo's Family Markets, Inc., Civil Action No.
1:95-CV-446 (W.D. Mich.)
Issues: Reasonable Accommodation: The defendant failed to
accommodate the charging party's disability (HIV
positive) by placing him on involuntary leave of
absence.
Termination: The defendant terminated the
charging party because of his disability.
Terms and Conditions: The defendant transferred
the charging party from Produce Clerk to Receiving
Clerk and subjected him to more stringent medical
requirements because of his disability.
Disability-Related Inquiries: The defendant
conducted prohibited medical examinations and
inquiries to charging party, and other disabled
individuals.
Forced Medical Leave: The defendant placed the
charging party on involuntary medical leave
because of his disability.
Decided: October 29, 1996: Judgment for the plaintiff in
the amount of $9,400 in back pay and interest,
supplementing a September 20, 1996 jury verdict
awarding the charging party $10,000 in
compensatory damages and $45,000 in punitive
damages. The court also ordered that the charging
party be reinstated to his previous position.
Filed: July 5, 1995
Contact: Detroit District Office (313) 226-6701
EEOC v. Puff's of Petosky, Civil Action No. 1:95-CV-314
(W.D. Mich.)
Issues: Reasonable Accommodation: The defendant failed to
accommodate charging party's disability (spinal
injury) in failing to provide occasional
assistance in lifting heavy items.
Termination: The defendant terminated the
charging party due to his disability (or perceived
disability) and request for accommodation.
Disability-Related Inquiries: The defendant's
pre-employment application and questionnaire
contained disability-related inquiries.
Confidentiality: The defendant violated the
confidentiality provisions of ADA by publishing
the charging party's medical information and
distributing it to its employees.
Filed: May 19, 1995
Resolved: November 9, 1995: Consent decree providing for
$16,000 in back pay and punitive damages to the
charging party, and requiring the defendant to
refrain from making unlawful pre-employment
medical or psychological inquiries, from
unlawfully disclosing medical information of job
applicants and employees and requiring training of
defendant's managers and supervisors.
Contact: Detroit District Office (313) 226-6701
EEOC v. Regis Corp., Civil Action No. 6-95-CV-011-C (N.D.
Tex.)
Issue: Termination: The defendant terminated the
charging party because of his disability (AIDS) or
because the defendant regarded him as having a
disability.
Filed: February 6, 1995
Resolved: August 18, 1995: Consent decree providing the
charging party with $35,000.
Contact: San Antonio District Office (210) 229-4843
* EEOC v. Reiter Automotive Globe, Inc., Civil Action No.
2:96CV 547RL (N.D. Ind.)
Issue: Hiring: The defendant failed to hire the charging
party as a plant "extra" because it perceived him
as disabled.
Record Keeping: The defendant failed to make and
preserve records required by the ADA.
Filed: October 8, 1996
Resolved: February 18, 1997: Consent decree providing the
charging party with $40,000 in monetary relief and
providing managers and supervisors with training
on the requirements of the ADA.
Contact: Indianapolis District Office (317) 226-7809
EEOC v. Resort Beverage Co., Civil Action No. 95-1568 (M.D.
Pa.)
Issue: Termination: The defendant terminated the
charging party because of his age (56) and his
disability (arthritis).
Filed: September 19, 1995
Resolved: February 14, 1996: ADA claim withdrawn.
Contact: Philadelphia District Office (215) 451-5787
EEOC v. S and C Electric Co., Inc., Civil Action No.
94-C-2308 (N.D. Ill.)
Issue: Hiring: The defendant failed to hire the charging
party based on a record of disability (coronary
bypass surgery) and because the defendant regarded
the charging party as disabled (diabetes) based on
a pre-employment medical exam.
Filed: April 13, 1994
Resolved: June 17, 1994: Voluntary dismissal.
Contact: Chicago District Office (312) 353-7596
EEOC v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial School, et al., Civil
Action No. 94-314 (D.D.C.)
Issues: Reasonable Accommodation: The defendants failed
to accommodate the charging party's disability
(multiple sclerosis - wheelchair user) by
interviewing her outside their building.
Accessibility: The defendants did not grant the
charging party an interview because the
defendants' facility was not accessible.
Hiring: The defendants failed to hire the
charging party because of her disability.
Filed: February 17, 1994
Decided: June 4, 1996: Court dismissed this action for
want of subject matter jurisdiction. The court
rejected the argument that the church and school
were an integrated enterprise and concluded that
the school did not have 25 employees.
Status: On appeal.
Contact: Baltimore District Office (410) 962-4207
EEOC v. St. Joseph's Medical Center, Inc., Civil Action No.
3:95-CV-0548-RM (D. Ind.)
Issues: Terms and Conditions: The defendant refused to
allow the charging party to perform the duties of
the job for which she was hired because it
perceived her as disabled (cumulative trauma
disorder).
Termination: The defendant terminated the
charging party because it regarded her as
disabled.
Filed: June 30, 1995
Resolved: April 22, 1996: Settlement agreement in which the
defendant agreed to purge the charging party's
employment records and personnel files of any
reference to her charge of discrimination against
the defendant; provide a neutral reference;
implement a policy prohibiting discrimination
based on disability; replace post-offer physicals
with job related health assessments; notify the
Commission of any individuals rejected for or
discharged from employment based on health
assessments or medical history; and provide
training to managerial and supervisory employees
regarding ADA requirements; terms in effect for
one year. The charging party declined any
monetary relief due to her religious convictions.
Contact: Indianapolis District Office (317) 226-7208
EEOC v. St. Paul Federal Bank for Savings, Civil Action No.
95 C 5283 (N.D. Ill.)
Issue: Terms and Conditions: The defendant discriminated
against a former employee and other individuals
with disabilities by denying them the option of
receiving their retirement benefits in a lump sum
payment under the defendant's pension plan because
of their disabilities.
Filed: September 15, 1995
Resolved: September 28, 1995: Consent decree in which the
defendant amended its pension plan to allow the
charging party and other retirees with
disabilities to receive their retirement benefits
in a lump sum. In addition, two individuals
received $474,030 in lump sum retirement benefits.
Contact: Chicago District Office (312) 353-7596
EEOC v. Sanden International (USA), Inc., and Manpower
International, Inc., Civil Action No. 4: 95-CV-37 (E.D.
Tex.)
Issues: Reasonable Accommodation: The defendants failed
to accommodate the charging party's disability
(left leg amputated below knee) in failing to
provide him with a stool or reassigning him to
other employers.
Termination: The defendants terminated the
charging party because of his disability.
Filed: February 14, 1995
Resolved: April 18, 1995: Settlement agreement in which the
defendants agree not to violate the ADA and to
post notices regarding ADA.
Contact: Houston District Office (713) 209-3320
* EEOC v. Schaad Detective Agency, Civil Action No. 95-4057
(E.D. Pa.)
Issues: Reasonable Accommodation: The defendant refused
to accommodate the charging party's disability
(back impairment) by failing to provide the light
duty restrictions that two doctors had prescribed
for him.
Reinstatement: The defendant refused to reinstate
the charging party to his position as a security
guard after he recovered from an injury.
Confidentiality: The defendant commingled the
charging party's medical records in his personnel
file.
Filed: June 30, 1995
Resolved: December 30, 1996: Settlement agreement providing
$1,174.23 in monetary relief to the charging
party.
Contact: Philadelphia District Office (215) 451-5787
EEOC v. Scrivner, Inc. - Kansas Division d/b/a Jubilee
Foods, Civil Action No. 95-1138-MLB (D. Kan.)
Issue: Hiring: The defendant refused to hire the
charging party because of her disability
(deafness).
Filed: March 20, 1995
Resolved: March 22, 1995: Consent decree, filed
contemporaneously with the complaint, approved by
court. The defendant paid the charging party
$8,000 in back pay and damages and was enjoined
from discriminating on the basis of disability and
was ordered to post copies of Notice to Employees
for one year.
Contact: St. Louis District Office (314) 539-7800
EEOC v. Sharp Manufacturing Co. of America, Civil Action No.
95-2405 (W. D. Tenn.)
Issue: Hiring: The defendant failed to hire the charging
party into an assembly line position because of
his disability (spina bifida).
Filed: June 1, 1995
Decided: May 21, 1996: Court Order granting the
defendant's motion for summary judgment.
Contact: Memphis District Office (901) 544-0115
Harry Hocutt, EEOC, et al. v. Shelby Steel Fabricators,
Inc., Civil Action No. CV-93-B-2679-S (N.D. Ala.)
Issues: Hiring: The defendant failed to hire the charging
party and a class of individuals because of their
disabilities.
Reasonable Accommodation: The defendant failed to
provide reasonable accommodations for a class of
job applicants with disabilities.
Disability-Related Inquiries: The defendant made
disability-based pre-employment medical inquires
of a class of job applicants.
Filed: December 1, 1994
Resolved: June 25, 1996: Consent decree providing for
injunctive relief prohibiting the use of pre-offer
medical inquiries and co-mingling of records.
Contact: Birmingham District Office (205) 731-2067
EEOC v. Smith Barney, Inc., Civil Action No. 95-874-A (W.D.
Okla.)
Issue: Termination: The charging party was granted sick
leave to obtain treatment for her breast cancer,
but when she informed the company that she was
able to return to work, she was discharged.
Filed: May 24, 1996 (intervention)
Resolved: September 30, 1996: Settlement agreement
providing $150,000 to the charging party.
Contact: Dallas District Office (214) 655-3327
EEOC v. Southeast Precast Corp. d/b/a Southern Cast Stone
Company, Inc., Civil Action No. 3:94-262 (E.D. Tenn.)
Issues: Reinstatement: The defendant refused to reinstate
the charging party because of his record of
disability (back injury) and a doctor-imposed
weight restriction.
Reasonable Accommodation: The defendant failed to
accommodate the charging party's weight
restrictions by not placing him in a "no lifting"
position and/or not providing occasional
assistance with lifting when needed.
Filed: May 9, 1994
Resolved: December 27, 1994: Consent decree providing the
charging party with $27,500 in monetary relief.
Contact: Memphis District Office (901) 544-0115
EEOC v. Southern Starr Foods, Inc., Civil Action No.
CIV-95-872-L (W.D. Okla.)
Issues: Hiring: The defendant refused to hire a class of
applicants because it regarded them as having
disabilities and because they had records of
disabilities.
Disability-Related Inquiries: The defendant
inquired of applicants whether they were
individuals with disabilities.
Confidentiality: The defendant violated
confidentiality provisions by failing to keep
class of charging parties' medical records in
separate confidential files.
Filed: June 12, 1995
Resolved: July 3, 1996: Order of Bankruptcy Court allowing
payment of $19,844.83 on back pay claims of 12
individuals.
Contact: Dallas District Office (214) 655-3327
* EEOC v. Spark's Nugget, Inc., d/b/a John Ascuaga's Nugget
Casino, Civil Action No. N-96-0502 ECT (D. Nev.)
Issue: Health Insurance Coverage: The defendant
maintained a health insurance policy that excluded
AIDS-related treatments.
Filed: August 6, 1996
Resolved: December 20, 1996: Settlement agreement providing
$10,000 to the charging party for personal
injuries.
Contact: Los Angeles District Office (213) 894-1083
EEOC v. The Star Ledger, Civil Action No. 95-4405(JCL)
(D.N.J.)
Issues: Reasonable Accommodation: The defendant refused
to consider any reasonable accommodation for
charging party's disability (emphysema/asthma).
Forced Leave: The defendant placed the charging
party on disability leave.
Termination: The defendant terminated the
charging party from his position as a newspaper
delivery truck driver because of his
emphysema/asthma.
Filed: August 22, 1995
Resolved: April 24, 1996: Settlement agreement that provided
$5,000 to the widow of the charging party.
Contact: Philadelphia District Office (215) 451-5787
EEOC v. Spectacor Management Group/Spectacor, Inc., Civil
Action No. 95-2688 (E.D. Pa.)
Issues: Reasonable Accommodation: The defendant failed to
accommodate the charging party's disability (AIDS)
by refusing to allow him to continue to work, and
by refusing to grant him a flexible schedule.
Confidentiality: The defendant violated the
confidentiality provisions of the ADA by
disclosing the charging party's medical condition
to others.
Filed: May 5, 1995
Resolved: June 22, 1995: Settlement agreement providing
monetary relief to charging party and the
defendant's agreement to place the charging party
on long-term disability, to convert his life
insurance from a group to an individual policy,
and to issue a positive letter of recommendation;
further, the defendant will conduct AIDS
sensitivity training for its employees.
Contact: Philadelphia District Office (215) 451-5787
EEOC v. Tarrant Distributors, Inc., Civil Action No.
H-94-3001 (S.D. Tex.)
Issues: Limiting, Segregating, and/or Classifying: The
defendant denied individuals with AIDS equal
access to medical benefits by providing them or
causing them to be provided with lesser and
different medical benefits, compensation, and
other terms and conditions of employment.
Health Insurance Coverage: The defendants placed
a $10,000 lifetime cap ($5,000 annual) on medical
coverage for AIDS-related treatment; all other
illnesses carry a $1 million cap.
Filed: September 14, 1994
Resolved: October 11, 1994: Consent decree entered wherein
the defendants agreed: to provide the same health
insurance coverage to the charging party and other
individuals who have AIDS or who are HIV positive
as is provided to other employees; to eliminate
the AIDS cap on January 1, 1995; to pay $40,000
for the unpaid medical bills of charging party and
to cover the medical expenses of any other
employees who exceeded the AIDS cap prior to its
removal; to donate $20,000 to the American
Foundation for AIDS Research.
Contact: Houston District Office (713) 209-3320
EEOC v. Teledyne Economic Development Co., Civil Action No.
CV-95-245 TUC ACM (D. Ariz.)
Issue: Terms and Conditions: The defendant eliminated
certain duties of the charging party, such as
driving, due to the charging party's disability
(epilepsy).
Filed: April 20, 1995
Resolved: December 22, 1995: Case voluntarily dismissed.
Contact: Phoenix District Office (602) 640-2251
EEOC v. Texas Bus Lines, Civil Action No. H-95-3981 (S.D.
Tex.)
Issues: Disability-Related Inquiries: Pre-employment
disability-related inquiries were contained in the
defendant's application.
Hiring: The defendant withdrew its offer of
employment because of the charging party's actual
or perceived disability (morbid obesity).
Filed: August 3, 1995
Decided: April 25, 1996: Court granted EEOC's motion for
partial summary judgment in part, finding that the
charging party was a qualified individual, that
she was regarded as disabled by the defendant and
that the defendant failed to show that the
charging party posed a direct threat to the safety
of her passengers due to her alleged impaired
mobility. The court also found, however, that the
defendant did not violate the ADA by making pre-offer
medical inquiries on its application form.
Resolved: June 10, 1996: Consent decree providing for
$12,000 in monetary relief to the charging party;
ADA training to the defendant's managerial
employees; and management level review of each
instance in which an individual fails to pass a
pre-employment medical examination (other than for
positive alcohol or drug tests).
Contact: Houston District Office (713) 209-3320
EEOC v. Tokheim Corp. and Local Union No. 1539, Int'l Union,
et al., Civil Action No. 1:95-CV-0048 (N.D. Ind.)
Issues: Limiting, Segregating, and/or Classifying:
Individuals with AIDS were denied equal access to
medical benefits by providing them or causing them
to be provided with lesser and different medical
benefits, compensation, and other terms and
conditions of employment.
Health Insurance Coverage: The defendant
administered a health plan that excludes AIDS
medications from coverage in violation of the ADA.
Filed: February 24, 1995
Resolved: April 29, 1996: supplemental consent decree
providing $30,000 in damages to the estate of the
charging party; a previous partial consent decree,
dated February 20, 1996, provided that the company
would reimburse all insured employees for anti-viral
legend drug medications since November 1,
1992 to the present, and amend current
prescription drug cards to include coverage of
such medications.
Contact: Indianapolis District Office (317) 226-7208
EEOC v. Tootsie Roll Industries, Inc., Civil Action No.
95-C-0989 (N.D. Ill.)
Issues: Reinstatement: The defendant refused to reinstate
the charging party to his former position after
learning of his disability (schizophrenia).
Termination: The defendant terminated the
charging party pursuant to an alcohol policy
because of his disability (he appeared to be
"under the influence").
Filed: February 16, 1995
Resolved: March 29, 1996: Consent decree providing $19,500
in monetary relief for the charging party.
Contact: Chicago District Office (312) 353-8551
EEOC v. Transitional Living Systems, Inc., Civil Action No.
94-73445 (E.D. Mich.)
Issues: Disability-Related Inquiries: The defendant made
disability-related inquiries its pre-employment
application.
Confidentiality: The defendant violated the
confidentiality provisions of ADA in failing to
maintain separate files for medical information of
its employees from personnel files.
Filed: August 31, 1994
Resolved: October 17, 1994: Consent decree entered wherein
the defendant agreed to eliminate disability-based
inquiries from its application form, to refrain
from making any pre-offer medical disability-related
inquiries and to refrain from requiring
applicants or employees to undergo any medical or
physical examination prohibited by the ADA. The
defendant also agreed to segregate its medical
records as required by the ADA.
Contact: Detroit District Office (313) 226-4647
EEOC and Stanley Young v. Transkrit Corp., Civil Action No.
95-2137 (W.D. Ark.)
Issues: Reasonable Accommodation: The defendant failed to
reasonably accommodate the charging party's
disability (neck impairment).
Termination: The defendant terminated the
charging party because of his disability.
Filed: July 3, 1995
Resolved: December 20, 1995: Consent decree requiring the
defendant to pay the charging party $8,000 in
damages and to make appropriate modifications to
its disability leave and return to work policies.
Contact: Memphis District Office (901) 544-0115
EEOC v. Union Carbide, Civil Action No. 94-0103 (E.D. La.)
Issues: Reasonable Accommodation: The defendant failed to
accommodate the charging party's disability
(bipolar disorder) in refusing to provide him with
a non-rotating or relief shift schedule.
Termination: The defendant terminated the
charging party because of his disability.
Filed: January 10, 1994
Resolved: April 12, 1996: Consent decree providing $120,000
in compensatory damages for one individual as well
as injunctive relief for employees requesting
reasonable accommodation in the future.
Contact: New Orleans District Office (504) 589-6817
EEOC v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., Civil Action No. LR-C-95-368
(W.D. Ark.)
Issues: Reasonable Accommodation: The defendant failed to
accommodate the charging party's disability (back
impairment).
Termination: The defendant discharged or
constructively discharged the charging party
because of her disability.
Filed: June 13, 1995
Resolved: May 20, 1996: Consent decree providing an
injunction prohibiting the company from
discriminating on the basis of disability.
Contact: Memphis District Office (901) 544-0115
EEOC v. United Airlines, Inc., Civil Action No. CIV-96-609
(E.D. Va.)
Issue: Reasonable Accommodation: The defendant failed to
accommodate the charging party by denying him a
shift bid because of his impairment (multiple
sclerosis) and by unnecessarily restricting his
work status.
Filed: June 13, 1996
Resolved: June 19, 1996: Consent decree providing $16,000
in monetary relief to the charging party.
Contact: Baltimore District Office (410)962-4207
* EEOC v. United Welfare Fund, et al., Civil Action No. 96-CIV
7829 (S.D.N.Y.)
Issue: Health Insurance Coverage: The defendants
maintained and administered a health benefits plan
that limited coverage for HIV and AIDS to an
annual cap of $15,000 and a lifetime cap of
$50,000; caps were not placed on any other
catastrophic illness.
Filed: October 16, 1996.
Resolved: October 17, 1996: Consent decree providing for
retroactive removal from the defendants' health
insurance plan of the cap on benefits for HIV and
AIDs-related medical treatment and payment of
$8,750 to the estate of the charging party.
Contact: New York District Office (212) 748-8512
EEOC v. V. C. Tank Lines, Inc., Civil Action No.
94-CV-72163-OT (E.D. Mich.)
Issues: ADEA Charge: The defendant laid off the charging
party because of his age (57).
Disability-Related Inquiries: The pre-employment
application that the defendant distributed to each
potential employee contained disability-related
inquiries.
Filed: June 3, 1994
Resolved: July 5, 1995: Consent decree providing the
charging party $10,000 in resolution of ADEA
claim; also, the defendant agreed to stop using
prohibited pre-employment inquiries.
Contact: Detroit District Office (313) 226-4647
* EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Civil Action No. 95-1199JP
(D.N.M.)
Issues: Hiring: The defendant failed and refused to hire
the charging party when it discovered he had a
disability (amputated arm).
Disability-Related Inquiries: The defendant
included disability-related inquiries in its
pre-employment interview with the charging party.
Filed: October 11, 1995
Decided: February 21 and 24, 1997: Jury verdict for
plaintiff and judgment confirming the verdict and
awarding $7,500 in compensatory damages and
$150,000 in punitive damages.
Contact: San Antonio District Office (210) 229-4843
EEOC v. Wayne Metal Products Co., Inc. & Independent Wayne
Metal Products Union, Civil Action No. 1:95-CV-0357 (N.D.
Ind.)
Issue: Terms and Conditions: The defendant violated the
ADA by entering into an agreement establishing a
light-duty policy that discriminates against
qualified individuals with disabilities.
Filed: October 30, 1995
Resolved: October 30, 1995: Stipulation and Order of
Dismissal filed with Settlement Agreement. The
defendants agreed to pay charging party Ivins
$652.80 in damages and charging party Neal
$1,212.18 in damages. The defendants further
agreed not to discriminate on the basis of
disability.
Contact: Memphis District Office (901) 544-0115
EEOC v. Wedgewood Nursing Pavilion, Ltd., Civil Action No.
95-C-0666 (N.D. Ill.)
Issue: Termination: The defendant terminated the
charging party because of her perceived disability
(heart condition).
Filed: February 2, 1995
Resolved: September 27, 1995: Consent decree in which the
defendant agreed to pay the charging party $15,000
in back pay, compensatory damages and interest.
Contact: Chicago District Office (312) 353-8551
EEOC v. Wes-Tex Drilling Co., Civil Action No. SA-95-CA-553
(W.D. Tex.)
Issues: Termination: The defendant terminated the
charging party because of his disability
(epilepsy), or because it regarded him as
disabled.
Disability-Related Inquiries: The defendant made
a prohibited inquiry of charging party about his
disability.
Filed: June 21, 1995
Resolved: December 15, 1995: Consent decree providing for
the payment of $55,000 to the charging party in
settlement of this dispute and the defendant being
enjoined from discriminating on the basis of
disability.
Contact: San Antonio District Office (210) 229-4843
EEOC v. Wible Lumber, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:93-CV-0288
(N.D. Ind.)
Issues: Termination: The defendant forced the charging
party to resign because she received a partial
permanent impairment notice (20% back impairment).
Confidentiality: The defendant violated the
confidentiality provisions of the ADA in failing
to maintain medical information of employees in
separate medical files.
Post or Keep Posted EEOC Notices: The defendant
failed to post the required ADA notice.
Filed: November 2, 1993
Resolved: March 28, 1994: Consent decree providing the
charging party with $15,000 in damages and
requiring the defendant to maintain confidential
medical records as required by ADA.
Contact: Indianapolis District Office (317) 226-7208
EEOC v. The Wood Co., Civil Action No. 94-CV-4029 (E.D. Pa.)
Issues: Reasonable Accommodation: The defendant failed to
accommodate the charging party's disability
(epilepsy) by refusing to adjust his work
schedule.
Forced Medical Leave: The defendant forced the
charging party to take medical leave and not
return to work.
Filed: June 29, 1994
Resolved: December 22, 1994: Case settled between the
charging party's private counsel and the defendant
for $28,000. In light of the private settlement,
the Commission secured a voluntary dismissal
pursuant to F.R.C.P. 41(a).
Contact: Philadelphia District Office (215) 451-5787
III. APPELLATE AND AMICUS DOCKET
These cases are either currently under appeal or have been
decided on appeal; they are listed alphabetically by the
plaintiff's name. New cases and cases in which the EEOC,
since the last listing, has filed a brief or in which there
has been significant change in status (e.g., an appellate
decision) are marked with an "*." The Commission has pursued
five appeals and has participated as amicus curiae in 37 cases
on issues arising under the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
A. EEOC Cases
EEOC and Charles Wessel v. AIC Security Investigations,
Ltd., et al. , 4 AD Cases 693 (7th Cir. 1995)
Background: A jury found that the defendant company fired
the charging party from his position as
Executive Director because he had terminal
brain cancer. The jury also held the company
president and sole shareholder individually
liable for her role in the decision to
terminate the charging party.
Issues: (1) Whether an individual can be liable for
damages under the ADA.
(2) Whether the district court acted within its
discretion in permitting the jury's award of
compensatory damages to stand.
Decided: The appellate court affirmed the judgment against
AIC, affirmed the amount of compensatory damages
awarded against AIC, reversed the finding of
individual liability against the company
president, and remanded the case for a
determination of whether the defendant company is
liable for the total punitive damages award of
$150,000.
Date: May 22, 1995
Contact: EEOC Appellate Services (202) 663-4736
(See also entry, above, under "Trial Docket -
Cases Resolved")
EEOC v. Amego, Inc., No. 96-1837 (1st Cir.)
Background: The defendant terminated the charging party,
Guglielmi, who has depression and bulimia,
from her position as Team Leader after
learning that she had attempted suicide by
overdosing on over-the-counter and
prescription medicine. As Team Leader,
Guglielmi was responsible, among other
things, for ordering and administering
clients' medication at the employer's day
treatment program for autistic and severely
behaviorally disordered adolescents and
adults. The United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts granted summary
judgment for the defendant.
Issues: (1) Whether an employer who terminates an
individual for conduct related to the individual's
disability has terminated the individual "because
of her disability" within the meaning of the ADA.
(2) Whether the district court erred in granting
summary judgment based on the employer's assertion
that Guglielmi could not be trusted to administer
medications when Guglielmi was qualified to
perform the essential functions of her job and the
employer did not prove by undisputed evidence that
she posed a direct threat to safety.
(3) Whether there are material issues of fact as
to whether the employer could reasonably
accommodate Guglielmi by reassigning her to a
behavior therapist position.
Status: EEOC brief as appellant filed September 17, 1996;
reply brief filed November 6, 1996; argued
December 5, 1996.
Contact: EEOC Appellate Services (202) 663-4736
(See also entry, above, under "Trial Docket -
Cases Resolved")
EEOC v. CNA Insurance Companies, et al., No. 96-1304 (7th
Cir. 1996)
Background: In the court below, the Commission sought a
preliminary injunction barring CNA Insurance
Company from terminating the long-term
disability benefits of the charging party,
who worked for the insurance company until
the onset of her mental disability in 1993.
Under CNA's policy, benefits continue until
age 65 for all disabilities, except for those
related to "mental or nervous conditions,"
for which a two-year limit exists. The
district court found that the charging party
was not protected by the ADA because her
current inability to perform the essential
functions of her former job means that she is
not a "qualified individual with a
disability."
Issues: (1) Whether, under the ADA, a person who is
qualified to receive long-term disability leave,
but is not capable of performing the functions of
the job she held before she became unable to work,
is a "qualified individual with a disability" for
purposes of challenging discrimination in her
employer's long term disability plan.
(2) Whether the defendant violated the ADA by
providing up to two years of long-term disability
benefits for mental illnesses while providing such
benefits until age 65 for physical illnesses.
Decided: The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's
dismissal, holding that the charging party as a
"benefit recipient" who could no longer hold an
employment position with the defendant, could not
meet the definition of "a qualified individual
with a disability," i.e., one who, with or without
reasonable accommodation, can perform the
essential functions of a particular job. The
court further determined that the ADA does not
require parity among physical and mental health
benefits, and thus the charging party suffered no
discrimination cognizable under Title I of the
ADA.
Date: September 27, 1996
Contact: EEOC Appellate Services (202) 663-4736
(See also entry, above, under "Trial Docket -
Cases Resolved")
* EEOC and Harald E. Martison II v. Kinney Shoe Corp., Nos.
95-1555 & 95-1556
Background: Martison worked as a shoe salesman for the
defendant for several years. When the
frequency of his epileptic seizures
increased, the defendant fired him, on the
grounds that he could endanger himself and
others and could pose a security risk to the
store. The district court granted summary
judgment to the defendant, finding that the
employer had acted because of harmful
behavior directly attributable to the
disability, not because of generalized
assumptions about the disability.
Issue: Whether an employer violates the ADA by firing a
qualified individual with a disability because he
has symptoms that are inextricably linked to his
disability.
Decided: The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court
decision on an alternate ground. Although the
court agreed with the EEOC that the ADA forbids
firing an employee because of his seizures, the
court found that the plaintiff was not qualified
to perform one of the essential functions of his
position - maintaining store security - because of
those seizures.
Date: January 21, 1997
Contact: EEOC Appellate Services (202) 663-4736
(See also entry, above, under "Trial Docket -
Cases Resolved")
* EEOC v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial School, et al., No. 96-5239
(D.C. Cir.)
Background: The EEOC sued the defendant church and school
for refusing to make a reasonable
accommodation to allow the charging party,
who uses a wheelchair, to interview for a
teaching job, and for refusing to hire her
because of her disability. The court below
dismissed the case sua sponte for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction, holding that the
defendant school, church and day care center
were not an "integrated enterprise" and that
the school had an insufficient number of
employees by itself.
Issue: Whether the parish church, the parish-run school
and the parish-run day care center are an
"integrated enterprise" for purposes of meeting
the requirement of 25 employees for ADA coverage.
Status: Brief as appellant filed January 8, 1997
Contact: EEOC Appellate Services (202) 663-4736
(See also entry, above, under "Trial Docket -
Cases Resolved")
B. Amicus Cases
* Aka v. Washington Hospital Center, No. 96-7089 (D.C. Cir.)
Background: After working 20 years for the defendant
hospital as an orderly, the plaintiff
underwent bypass surgery, which was
complicated by his diabetic condition.
Although released to return to work, the
plaintiff was restricted by his doctor to
light duties, precluding resumption of his
strenuous orderly duties. He applied for
other positions but was not chosen. Aka sued
under the ADA, contending that he should have
been reassigned to a vacant position as a
reasonable accommodation. Although the
collective bargaining agreement provided the
defendant with discretion to reassign
disabled employees without regard to posting
and other selection requirements, the
defendant asserted that it had never
exercised this discretion and did not make
such an exception for the plaintiff. The
court below granted the defendant's summary
judgment motion, citing Rehabilitation Act
cases for its ruling that reassignment was
not required because it would violate the
collective bargaining agreement's provisions
on job posting and other selection criteria.
Issues: (1) Whether a collective bargaining agreement
relieves an employer of any obligation to reassign
a disabled employee as a reasonable accommodation
of his disability, where the agreement grants the
employer discretion to reassign employees who
cannot perform their current jobs due to
disability, without regard to the job posting and
selection procedures usually required.
(2) Whether, assuming reassignment would not
violate the collective bargaining agreement, an
issue of fact exists that the defendant may have
violated the ADA by failing to reassign the
plaintiff to a vacant position as a reasonable
accommodation.
Status: Amicus brief filed November 1, 1996.
Contact: EEOC Appellate Services (202) 663-4736
Austin v. Owens-Brockway Glass Container, No. 94-1213 (4th
Cir. 1994)
Background: The plaintiff, an equipment cleaner,
sustained a job-related injury but was
cleared by her doctor for light duty work.
Denying that such work was available, the
defendant subsequently eliminated her job,
terminating her but reassigning a male
counterpart. The plaintiff was covered by a
collective bargaining agreement that
committed the company to complying with the
ADA and that required "any dispute" to be
submitted to the grievance procedure and, if
unresolved, to binding arbitration at the
request of either party. The district court
found that the plaintiff was required to
arbitrate her claims rather than bringing
them to court.
Issues: (1) Did the district court err in concluding that
an individual can be barred from bringing an
employment discrimination lawsuit against her
employer by an arbitration clause in a collective
bargaining agreement?
(2) Whether filing a charge with EEOC and
receiving notice of right to sue are
jurisdictional and whether such requirements may
be waived.
Decided: The appellate court affirmed the district court's
decision dismissing this suit and holding that the
plaintiff was required to arbitrate her employment
discrimination claims pursuant to a collective
bargaining agreement clause requiring the
arbitration of any dispute. The Commission filed
an amicus brief in support of rehearing, which was
denied.
Date: March 12, 1996; rehearing denied April 30, 1996
Contact: EEOC Appellate Services (202) 663-4736
Benson v. Northwest Airlines, No. 94-2824 (8th Cir. 1995)
[case cite 4 AD Cases 1234]
Background: While working as a mechanic for Northwest,
Benson experienced a relapse of a
neurological disorder that produced pain,
weakness and numbness in his arm and
shoulder. After receiving a letter from
Benson's physician restricting his work as a
mechanic and after providing Benson with 90
days to find another position within the
company, Northwest terminated his employment.
Issue: Whether the district court erred in assigning the
ultimate burden of proof to the plaintiff in a
case of reasonable accommodation under the ADA.
Decided: The appellate court held that once a plaintiff
makes a "facial showing" that reasonable
accommodation is possible, the burden shifts to
the employer to show that the plaintiff is unable
to "perform the essential functions of the job."
The court reversed the district court's grant of
summary judgment to the defendant.
Date: August 15, 1995
Contact: EEOC Appellate Services (202) 663-4736
Burch v. The Coca-Cola Co., No. 96-10990 (5th Cir.)
Background: The plaintiff filed this ADA discrimination
lawsuit, claiming that the defendant fired
him because of his disability (alcoholism)
and treated his conduct differently than
similar conduct by non-alcoholic employees.
The district court dismissed this claim,
ruling that the plaintiff had not established
a prima facie case of discrimination.
Issue: Whether the district court erred in finding that
the plaintiff had failed to state a prima facie
case of disability discrimination because he had
not shown that he was replaced by someone outside
the protected class.
Status: Amicus brief filed July 10, 1996; argued March 4,
1997
Contact: EEOC Appellate Services (202) 663-4736
Carparts Distribution Center v. AWANE, 37 F.3d 12 (1st Cir.
1994)
Background: Plaintiff Senter, who contracted and died of
AIDS, and his company, Carparts Distribution
Center, sued AWANE, the offerors of a self-funded
medical reimbursement plan, claiming
it violated the ADA when it amended the AWANE
plan to limit benefits for AIDS-related
illnesses to $25,000 while retaining a
lifetime limit for all other illnesses of $1
million. The district court dismissed
plaintiffs' claims without notice, finding
that neither AWANE nor the AWANE plan was an
"employer" within the meaning of the ADA.
Issue: Whether a health and welfare fund is a covered
entity under ADA.
Decided: The First Circuit Court of Appeals held that
because the district court erred in interpreting
the term "employer" under Title I of the ADA to
exclude defendants and erred in concluding that
defendants were not "public accommodations" under
Title III, the district court erred in dismissing
the plaintiff's complaint. The court directed the
trial court to allow the plaintiff the opportunity
to present evidence regarding coverage of the
defendants under Titles I and III.
Date: October 12, 1994
Contact: EEOC Appellate Services (202) 663-4736
* Castellano v. The City of New York, et al., No 96-7920 (2nd
Cir.)
Background: Plaintiffs, approximately 2000 former New
York City Police Officers, retired on
disability, rendering them ineligible for
supplemental benefits available only to
"service" retirees who worked for the city
for 20 years. Plaintiffs alleged that their
exclusion from these supplemental benefits
violates the ADA, among other laws. Granting
the defendants' motion to dismiss, the court
below found that the plaintiffs could not
bring an ADA claim under Title I because they
were not "qualified individuals with a
disability" who could perform the essential
functions of an employment position. The
court also ruled that Title II of the ADA
does not require that service retirement
plans and disability retirement plans provide
the same benefits, relying on a Commission
guideline to that effect.
Issue: Whether the ADA permits a challenge under Title
I's prohibition of discrimination in benefits to
an alleged discriminatory denial of benefits by
former police officers who retired with
disabilities and who are no longer able to perform
the duties of their former jobs.
Status: Amicus brief filed November 6, 1996, challenging
only the issue of the standing of former employees
to bring claims of discrimination in benefits
under the ADA.
Contact: EEOC Appellate Services (202) 663-4736
Cook v. Rhode Island, Dept. of Mental Health, Retardation,
and Hospitals, 10 F.3d 17 (1st Cir. 1993)
Background: The defendant had denied plaintiff Cook a
position as an institution attendant on the
basis of her morbid obesity. The plaintiff
prevailed at trial on her Rehabilitation Act
504 disability discrimination claim.
Issue: Whether morbid obesity can be a disability under
the Rehabilitation Act.
Decided: The appellate court affirmed the jury's verdict
and rejected the defendants' argument that obesity
is not a disability protected by 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act, and by analogy, by Title I of
the ADA, because obesity is not an involuntary and
immutable condition. According to the court, as
long as a prospective employer responds to a
perceived disability as if the employer regards
the condition as immutable, no more is needed.
Date: November 22, 1993
Contact: EEOC Appellate Services (202) 663-4736
DeForrest v. Stanley Smith Security, Inc., et al., No.
A072441 (Cal. Ct. App.)
Background: The defendant offered the plaintiff a
position as a supervisor of security guards
conditioned on the results of a medical
examination. During the exam, the plaintiff
disclosed that he has tinnitus, a hearing
impairment, which is corrected by a hearing
aid. Subsequently, the defendant withdrew
the offer because of its blanket policy of
refusing to hire persons who wear hearing
aids. The court below granted the
defendant's motion for summary judgment,
ruling that the plaintiff's hearing
impairment is not a disability because it
"does not limit his ability to participate in
major life activities." The court also found
that the plaintiff's "inability to perform
one particular job for one employer does not
establish" that the defendant regarded him as
disabled.
Issues: (1) Whether a genuine issue of fact exists as to
the plaintiff being substantially limited in the
major life activity of hearing;
(2) Whether a genuine issue of fact exists as to
the defendant regarding the plaintiff as being
substantially limited in the major life activity
of working.
Status: Amicus brief filed July 10, 1996
Contact: EEOC Appellate Services (202) 663-4736
Derbis v. United States Shoe Corp., No. 93-2312 (4th Cir.
1995) (unpublished)
Background: Derbis, a retail store manager, injured her
thumb and underwent two surgeries to correct
the problem. After the second operation, her
employer requested a doctor's note, which
stated that Derbis could return to work "as
tolerated." The district court found this
statement precluded Derbis from establishing
that she was able to perform her job without
accommodation.
Issue: Whether the district court erred in holding that
the "as tolerated" statement by the plaintiff's
doctor conclusively established that she was not
able to do her job.
Decided: The appellate court remanded the case for further
proceedings, stating that if the plaintiff "wishes
to work in her present condition . . . she must
seek a reasonable accommodation." The appeals
court further stated that if Derbis continues to
maintain that she does not need an accommodation,
"the employer is justified in instructing Derbis
not to return to work until she obtains a clean
bill of health."
Date: September 29, 1995
Contact: EEOC Appellate Services (202) 663-4736
Eckles v. Consolidated Rail Corp., et al, No. 95-2856 (7th
Cir.)
Background: Eckles sued his employer and union claiming
they had violated the ADA by permitting
another employee to exercise seniority rights
under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA)
to "bump" him from a position that met the
medical restrictions of his epilepsy. As a
result of this displacement, Eckles was
placed on involuntary sick leave until he was
able to exercise his own seniority rights to
bid on a position consistent with his medical
needs. Rejecting a balancing test, the
district court granted summary judgment in
favor of the defendant, ruling that "the ADA
does not require as a `reasonable
accommodation' actions that would violate a
bona fide seniority system at the expense of
other employee's rights under a [CBA]." 890
F. Supp. 1391 (S.D. Ind. 1995)
Issue: Whether the ADA requires an employer and union to
negotiate a variance from collectively bargained
seniority rules when the only available effective
accommodation contravenes these rules.
Decided: The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court,
holding that the ADA does not require individuals
with disabilities to be accommodated by
"sacrificing" the collectively-bargained, bona
fide seniority rights of other employees.
Date: August 14, 1996
Contact: EEOC Appellate Services (202) 663-4736
Ellison v. Software Spectrum, Inc., No. 95-10704 (5th Cir.)
Background: Ellison, a buyer for the defendant, was
diagnosed with a high risk breast cancer that
required a lumpectomy and daily radiation
treatments for two months. Because Ellison
felt pressure to maintain the same work level
to retain her job, she worked every day
despite the physical distress of radiation
treatments and the emotional stress of having
a life-threatening cancer. Subsequently, the
plaintiff's position was eliminated in a
reduction-in-force and she was transferred to
a less desirable job. She filed suit,
claiming that her employer violated the ADA.
On May 30, 1996, the court of appeals
affirmed summary judgment in favor of the
defendant on the ground that the plaintiff
failed to show a material factual dispute
whether her cancer is a "disability" within
the scope of ADA coverage. The Commission
filed an amicus brief in support of rehearing
on June 28, 1996.
Issue: Whether the court of appeals misapprehended the
ADA definition of "disability" and disregarded the
EEOC's regulations in holding that the plaintiff's
uninterrupted work attendance and adequate job
performance, while she endured acute physical and
emotional distress caused by her treatment for
malignant breast cancer, established as a matter
of law that she does not have a "disability"
within the scope of ADA coverage.
Decided: Rehearing denied.
Date: July 10, 1996
Contact: EEOC Appellate Services (202) 663-4736
* Feliberty v. Kemper Corp., No. 95-1724 (7th Cir.)
Background: Dr. Feliberty was employed by Kemper for two
years as its medical director, responsible
for reviewing life insurance policy
applications. After Dr. Feliberty was
diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome, he
requested accommodations to his computer work
station, which were denied. Subsequently,
Kemper provided an accommodation that Dr.
Feliberty stated made his condition worse.
While on leave following medical treatment
for his condition, Dr. Feliberty was fired.
Dr. Feliberty filed suit under the ADA,
claiming that Kemper failed to provide a
reasonable accommodation. The district court
granted summary judgment to the defendant,
finding that the plaintiff was precluded from
suing for failure to accommodate by his
statement in his EEOC charge that he had been
granted an accommodation. In addition, the
lower court held that typing was an essential
function of the job and that the only
accommodation possible was eliminating all
keyboard work, which was not reasonable.
Therefore, the court concluded that the
plaintiff was not a "qualified individual
with an disability."
Issues: (1) Whether the district court erred by holding
that the charging party's statement in his
Commission charge that Kemper made an
accommodation defeats his claim that Kemper failed
to reasonably accommodate his disability.
(2) Whether the allegations in the charging
party's complaint that carpal tunnel syndrome
impairs his ability to type and that he spends six
to eight hours a day at the keyboard defeats his
assertion that he can perform the essential
functions of his position as medical director.
Decided: The appellate court reversed the grant of summary
judgment to the defendant and remanded the case
for further proceedings.
Date: October 16, 1996
Contact: EEOC Appellate Services (202) 663-4736
* Ferguson v. Western Carolina Regional Sewer Authority, No.
96-1277 (4th Cir.)
Background: The plaintiff, who worked as a clerical
employee for 19 years for the defendant, was
diagnosed with hypothyroidism, a permanent
malfunction of her metabolic system, which
requires her to take a hormone replacement
medication daily for the rest of her life.
According to her doctor's testimony, the
plaintiff could not survive more than a few
weeks or months without this medication.
While adjusting to the medication, the
plaintiff requested and was placed on a
modified work schedule. Two weeks later, she
was terminated. She filed suit, claiming
that her discharge was in violation of the
ADA. The district court granted the
defendant's motion for summary judgment on
the ground that the plaintiff was not
disabled because "her impairment does not
substantially limit her major life
activities."
Issue: Whether the court should determine if an
impairment substantially limits a major life
activity by assessing the condition without regard
to mitigating measures such as medications or
other prosthetic or assistive devices.
Decided: The appellate court, per curiam, upheld the grant
of summary judgment on an alternative ground.
According to the court, even if the plaintiff is a
person with a disability within the meaning of the
ADA, she had been terminated for legitimate, non-
discriminatory reasons.
Date: December 30, 1996
Contact: EEOC Appellate Services (202) 663-4736
Fink v. New York City Department of Personnel, No. 94-7699
(2nd Cir.)
Background: The two plaintiffs were visually impaired
employees of the City of New York. The City
allowed them to take a promotion examination
with several accommodations, including
readers to record their answers. The
plaintiffs failed the examination and
subsequently sued under the Rehabilitation
Act, claiming that the accommodations
provided by the City were deficient because,
among other things, the readers talked among
themselves and refused to read back their
answers for verification. The district court
granted summary judgment to the City.
Issue: Whether an employer must provide accommodations to
a qualified individual with a disability that are
effective both in theory and in practice.
Decided: The appellate court affirmed, holding that where
an institution has made reasonable accommodation
to relieve a disabled person of the disadvantages
of the disability, it will not be found to have
discriminated merely because personnel employed as
part of that accommodation fail to perform their
assigned role to perfection.
Date: May 19, 1995
Contact: EEOC Appellate Services (202) 663-4736
Gonzales v. Garner Fast Foods, Inc., No. 95-8533 (11th Cir.)
Background: Bourgeois was fired by the defendant when it
learned that he had AIDS. Bourgeois elected
to continue his health coverage under the
company's benefit plan. Subsequently, in
1991 the company amended its health benefits
plan and imposed a lifetime cap of $40,000 on
AIDS-related expenses while maintaining a
$1,000,000 lifetime cap for all other medical
conditions. After Bourgeois' death, the
administrator of his estate, filed this
lawsuit, claiming the cap on AIDS benefits
violated the ADA.
Issues: (1) Whether a plaintiff can state a timely ADA
claim under a continuing violation theory where an
employer has maintained its pre-ADA AIDS benefits
cap beyond the ADA's effective date.
(2) Whether the district court erred as a matter
of law in holding that a former employee cannot
state an ADA claim challenging an employer's
discrimination in health insurance benefits.
Decided: The court of appeals affirmed the district court's
grant of the employer's motion to dismiss, finding
that Bourgeois, as a former employee, was not a
"qualified individual with a disability" because
he neither held nor desired to hold a position
with the company at or subsequent to the time that
the alleged discriminatory conduct was committed.
Date: August 2, 1996
Contact: EEOC Appellate Services (202) 663-4736
* Griffith v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 96-6361 (6th Cir.)
Background: The plaintiff alleged that Wal-Mart
discriminated against him on the basis of his
disability (severe back impairment) when the
company failed to provide him with an
accommodation, placed him on part-time
status, transferred him and then discharged
him from his sales position. Despite
applying for work with at least 30 employers,
Griffith remained unemployed. In his
application for Social Security disability
benefits five months later, Griffith stated
that "no employer will hire me because of my
condition and restrictions." Eventually,
after subsequent representations about his
limitations, he was granted these benefits.
The court below granted the defendant's
summary judgment motion, finding that the
plaintiff's representations regarding his
disability in the disability benefits
application process precluded him from
asserting that he was qualified to perform
the essential functions of his former
position.
Issue: Whether the district court erred when it held that
the plaintiff's representations regarding his
disability in his application for Social Security
Administration disability benefits precluded him
from asserting that he was "otherwise qualified"
for a job with the defendant.
Status: Amicus brief filed December 30, 1996
Contact: EEOC Appellate Services (202) 663-4736
* Harris v. Marathon Oil Co., No. 96-50202 (5th Cir.)
Background: Harris worked as a pumper for the defendant
until he reinjured his back and underwent
surgery. Although he requested "light duty"
work, the defendant repeatedly told him that
such work was unavailable and that he should
apply for disability benefits. After
certifying that he had a total disability, he
began receiving benefits under the company's
plan and under the federal social security
plan. Later, his doctor released him to
return to work and he attempted to regain a
job with the defendant. Although the
defendant refused to reinstate him, it cut
off his disability benefits, finding that he
was no longer "totally disabled."
Subsequently, the defendant discharged
Harris. Harris filed suit, claiming that he
was able to perform the essential functions
of pumper at the time of his termination.
The jury returned a verdict in his favor.
The district court, however, granted the
defendant's post-verdict motion for judgment
as a matter of law on the basis of "judicial
estoppel."
Issue: Whether the district court erred in ruling that
the plaintiff was judicially estopped as a matter
of law from prevailing on his ADA claim because of
his statement on a social security disability
benefit application that he was "totally
disabled."
Decided: The court of appeals per curiam affirmed the lower
court's decision but did so on the ground that the
plaintiff had not established he was a qualified
individual with a disability. The court did not
address the issue of judicial estoppel.
Date: February 10, 1997
Contact: EEOC Appellate Services (202) 663-4736
Leonard F. v. Israel Discount Bank of New York, No. 95-6420
(2nd Cir.)
Background: The plaintiff experienced a mental breakdown
in 1994 while working as an assistant vice-
president for the defendant bank and has been
unable to work since that date. Under the
defendant's long-term disability benefit
plan, coverage for physical disabilities is
provided until age 65 but coverage for mental
disabilities is limited to two years. The
plaintiff claims this distinction violates
the ADA. The court below dismissed the case
as unripe because the plaintiff's disability
benefits had not yet been exhausted.
Issues: (1) Whether the district court erred in ruling
that plaintiff's claim that the defendant
unlawfully limited disability benefits for
employees with mental disabilities is not ripe
because the plaintiff's benefits have not yet been
terminated.
(2) Whether an individual challenging
discrimination in a disability benefit program
need only satisfy the non-discriminatory criteria
for eligibility under the plan in order to be a
"qualified individual" within the meaning of the
ADA.
Decided: The appellate court vacated the district court's
order, finding that the plaintiff's condition was
unabated, only a few months remained for him to
receive benefits and therefore the case was ripe
for decision.
Date: June 13, 1996
Status: Remanded to the district court; argued in district
court on remand September 6, 1996. On remand, the
Southern District Court for the District of New
York denied the defendant's renewed motion to
dismiss. According to the court, an expansive
reading of the ADA might justify the plaintiff's
contention that since he was qualified to perform
his job and then became disabled, the ADA protects
him from discrimination based on his disability,
even though he is no longer able to perform his
duties. Because the issue is one of first
impression in the circuit, the court decided that
such a determination should be made on a full
record. (No. 95 Civ. 6964 (S.D.N.Y. September 24,
1996)).
Contact: EEOC Appellate Services (202) 663-4736
Lowe v. Angelo's Italian Foods, No. 95-3064 (10th Cir.)
Background: Lowe, a former kitchen manager, presented a
doctor's letter stating that, because of
neurological problems, she was limited in her
ability to stoop and bend and could not lift
more than 15 pounds. The defendant fired
Lowe the same day. Lowe was subsequently
diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. Lowe
sued, claiming the defendant had violated the
ADA, among other things. The lower court
granted summary judgment for the defendant,
finding that Lowe was not disabled under the
ADA.
Issue: Whether the district court erred in granting
summary judgment for the defendant on the ground
that the charging party failed to provide
sufficient evidence that she has a disability
under the ADA.
Decided: The appellate court reversed the district court's
grant of summary judgment on the plaintiff's ADA
claim. The court held that the plaintiff had
presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine
issue of fact as to whether her ability to lift is
substantially impaired. In addition, the court
determined that lifting is a "major life activity"
and that an individual whose ability to lift is
substantially impaired qualifies as a disabled
person within the meaning of the ADA.
Date: July 2, 1996
Contact: EEOC Appellate Services (202) 663-4736
Maldonado v. Pfizer Pharmaceutical, No. 94-1365 (PG)
(D.P.R.)
Background: The plaintiff filed a complaint with the
Office of Federal Contract Compliance
Programs alleging that the defendant
discriminated against her on the basis of
disability in violation of the Rehabilitation
Act. Under EEOC's regulation at 29 CFR
1641.5(a), the plaintiff's timely OFCCP
complaint is deemed a timely charge with the
EEOC under the ADA. When the plaintiff filed
the instant lawsuit under the ADA, the
defendant moved for summary judgment,
challenging the EEOC's authority to
promulgate this regulation.
Issue: Whether 29 C.F.R. 5(a), which provides for dual
filing of disability charges with the OFCCP and
EEOC, represents a valid exercise of the
regulatory authority that Congress granted the
Commission in 107(b) of the ADA.
Decided: The district court adopted the Commission's
position as amicus, denied Pfizer's motion for
summary judgment, and found that the regulation
comports with Congress' delegation of authority to
the EEOC.
Date: May 4, 1995
Contact: EEOC Appellate Services (202) 663-4736
Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund v. Donaghey, et
al., No. 93 Civ. 1585 JES (S.D.N.Y.)
Background: This declaratory action was brought by the
health and welfare fund seeking to have the
court find that its exclusion of coverage for
AIDS-related conditions is lawful. EEOC
filed a direct suit challenging this policy
(see Trial Docket, above).
Issue: Whether the health and welfare fund is an employer
or agent of an employer for purposes of coverage
under the ADA.
Decided: The court denied the plaintiffs' (who are the
defendants in EEOC's direct suit) summary judgment
motion, finding that Congress intended to cover
employee benefit funds in the provision
prohibiting the use of a benefit plan to evade the
purposes of the Act [ 501].
Date: November 19, 1993.
Contact: EEOC Appellate Services (202) 663-4736
* Matthews v. Commonwealth Edison, Inc., No. 96-3665 (7th
Cir.)
Background: Matthews worked for ComEd from 1966 through
1992 when he was discharged in a reduction in
force, despite years of exemplary performance
ratings. His most recent rating, however,
was the lowest in his department because,
according to his supervisor, he was
unavailable to make contributions during the
second half of the year due to a severe heart
attack.
Issue: Does the ADA prohibit an employer from discharging
a qualified individual with a disability in a
workforce reduction because of the person's
medical restrictions or need for accommodation,
unless the layoff selection criteria are job-related
and consistent with business necessity and
the person's limitations cannot reasonably be
accommodated without undue hardship.
Status: Amicus brief filed January 21, 1997
Contact: EEOC Appellate Services (202) 663-4736
McCord v. Burlington Northern Railroad Co., No. 94-6574
(11th Cir.)
Background: The plaintiff claimed, among other things,
that he was placed on unpaid disability leave
because of a perceived disability in
violation of the ADA. The district court
dismissed his lawsuit, holding that his
claims were subject to mandatory arbitration
under the Railway Labor Act as "minor
disputes" arising out of a collective
bargaining agreement.
Issue: Whether the Railway Labor Act deprives a railroad
worker of his statutory right to seek judicial
resolution of a federal claim of unlawful
employment discrimination.
Decided: In an unpublished opinion, the court of appeals
reversed the grant of summary judgment against the
plaintiff.
Date: May 30, 1995
Contact: EEOC Appellate Services (202) 663-4736
McKay v. Toyota Motor Manufacturing, U.S.A., Inc., No. 95-5617
(6th Cir.)
Background: The plaintiff, a former automotive assembler
for the defendant, developed carpel tunnel
syndrome and was medically restricted from
using certain tools and in lifting. The
defendant terminated her, citing allegedly
excessive absences. The lower court granted
the defendant's motion for summary judgment,
finding that the plaintiff was not
substantially limited in working because she
was earning a teaching certificate and thus
was qualified for numerous jobs "not
utilizing" the skills she learned as an
automotive assembler.
Issue: Whether a court should consider an automotive
assembler's ability to perform unrelated work
(i.e., a teaching position) in determining whether
that individual is limited in the major life
activity of working.
Status: Argued May 13, 1996
Contact: EEOC Appellate Services (202) 663-4736
McNemar v. The Disney Stores, Inc., No. 95-1590 (3rd Cir.
1996)
Background: McNemar, a former assistant manager of one of
Disney's retail stores, filed the instant
lawsuit claiming, in part, that the defendant
fired him because of his disability (AIDS) in
violation of the ADA. The lower court
granted summary judgment to the defendant,
holding that the plaintiff was judicially
estopped from arguing that he is qualified to
perform the duties of the position involved
because he had represented in sworn
statements on several disability benefits
forms that he was "totally and permanently
disabled" and because his doctor had also
certified that he was "totally and
permanently disabled."
Issue: Whether the district court erred in ruling that
the plaintiff's representation, in post-termination
benefits applications, that he was
"totally and permanently disabled" provided an
absolute defense to the plaintiff's claim of
unlawful discharge under the ADA.
Decided: The court of appeals upheld the district court"s
decision, ruling that its application of judicial
estoppel qualifies under a two-part test: (1)
whether the party's present position is
inconsistent with a position formerly asserted;
and (2) whether the party asserted either or both
of the inconsistent positions in bad faith.
Date: July 31, 1996; rehearing en banc denied September
16, 1996; cert. denied February 18, 1997.
Contact: EEOC Appellate Services (202) 663-4736
Miller v. National Casualty Co., No. 95-1001 (8th Cir.)
Background: The plaintiff worked as a benefits analyst
for the defendant for nine years when she
requested leave for family-related stress.
She later provided a doctor's statement
diagnosing her condition as "`situational
stress reaction.'" The plaintiff did not
return to work by the date required by the
company; her sister, however, informed the
company twice that the plaintiff was
"mentally falling apart," and that her family
was "trying to get her into the hospital."
The company requested in writing that the
plaintiff either provide a medical excuse for
her continued absence or return to work.
When she did not respond, she was fired. The
lower court granted summary judgment to the
defendant on the ground that the company did
not know the plaintiff was disabled at the
time of her discharge.
Issue: Whether the statements made to the defendant by
the plaintiff's sister and social worker were
sufficient to put the defendant on notice that the
plaintiff had a disability that required
accommodation.
Decided: The court of appeals concluded that since the
charging party's disability was not obvious, the
defendant was entitled to documentation of the
need for an accommodation; statements made by the
charging party's sister were insufficient to
constitute notice of the charging party's
disability.
Date: July 31, 1995
Contact: EEOC Appellate Services (202) 663-4736
* Murphy v. UPS, No. 96-3380 (10th Cir.)
Background: UPS terminated the plaintiff after his blood
pressure measured in excess of the cap set by
the Department of Transportation. The
plaintiff filed a complaint under the ADA,
contending that he was a qualified individual
with a disability who was terminated because
of his hypertension, despite his ability to
work. While still above the DOT level, a
second test entitled him to a temporary DOT
license and three months to lower his blood
pressure to an acceptable level. Granting
the defendant's summary judgment motion, the
district court ruled that Murphy's controlled
blood pressure was not a disability, that UPS
did not regard him as disabled, that he was
not "qualified" because he could not be DOT-
certified, that DOT regulations provided a
complete defense to his ADA claim and that he
had not disproved the defendant's claim of
undue hardship.
Issues: (1) Whether an individual with high blood pressure
that, when unmedicated, limits his ability to
perform several major life activities, has a
disability under the ADA, even though his
medicated condition does not substantially limit
him in any major life activities.
(2) Whether the defendant regarded the plaintiff
as disabled when it immediately terminated him
because his blood pressure readings exceeded the
range approved by DOT for driving commercial
vehicles, even though the DOT regulations do not
disqualify individuals solely on the basis of high
blood pressure.
(3) Whether the district court erred in
determining that the plaintiff is not a "qualified
individual with a disability," when his alleged
lack of qualification was solely based on the
defendant's erroneous denial of DOT certification.
(4) Whether the DOT regulations provided a defense
to the plaintiff's ADA discriminatory discharge
claim, where the defendant did not act
consistently with the DOT regulations and its
noncompliance led to the plaintiff's discharge.
Status: Amicus brief filed February 27, 1997.
Contact: EEOC Appellate Services (202) 663-4736
* Pangalos v. Prudential Insurance Co., No. 96-2022 (3rd Cir.)
Background: The plaintiff was an insurance salesman when
he began experiencing symptoms of ulcerative
colitis, a chronic bowel disease which
includes bouts of diarrhea. Consequently,
instead of visiting clients at their homes,
the plaintiff requested that he be allowed to
perform his job from the office as a
reasonable accommodation; alternatively, he
requested a transfer to an office job.
Neither accommodation was granted and the
defendant subsequently discharged the
plaintiff. The court below granted summary
judgment to the defendant on several grounds,
including that the plaintiff was not disabled
because his condition could be remedied
through the surgical removal of his bowel.
The court further found that the plaintiff
was not qualified because he could not
perform the essential function of "not
befouling himself." Additionally, the court
determined that either no accommodations were
available or that the accommodations offered
by the defendant were reasonable.
Issues: (1) Whether the existence of possible measures to
mitigate the effects of ulcerative colitis render
the plaintiff "not disabled" under the ADA when
evidence exists that his impairment substantially
limits a major life activity.
(2) Whether a genuine factual dispute exists that
travel is an essential function of the plaintiff's
job or simply the manner in which he performed
essential job functions.
(3) Whether a genuine factual dispute exists that
reasonable accommodations were available which
would have enabled the plaintiff to perform the
essential functions of his job.
Status: Amicus brief filed February 13, 1997
Contact: EEOC Appellate Services (202) 663-4736
* Parker v. Metropolitan Life, No. 95-5269 (6th Cir.)
Background: Parker worked for Schering-Plough Corporation
for nine years when she became disabled from
major depression and stopped working. She
received disability benefits for two years
under the Company's plan, which was
administered in part by MetLife. After her
benefits expired, Parker sued both her
employer and MetLife, claiming the plan's
benefits limit of two years for mental
disabilities while allowing benefits until
age 65 for physical disabilities was a
violation of the ADA. The district court
granted the defendants' motion to dismiss,
holding that the plaintiff was not a
"qualified individual with a disability"
because she could no longer perform the
essential functions of her job. The lower
court did not reach the issue raised by
MetLife as a separate ground for dismissal
that it was not a "covered entity."
Issues: (1) Whether a disabled employee who qualifies to
receive long-term disability benefits is a
"qualified individual with a disability" under
Title I of the ADA for purposes of challenging
those benefits.
(2) Whether the defendant MetLife could be a
"covered entity" under Title I of the ADA on the
basis of its administration of the long-term
disability benefits plan that the employer offers
to its employees.
Decided: The appellate court upheld the lower court's
determination that the plaintiff could not
challenge discrimination in disability benefits
under Title I of the ADA because she could no
longer perform the essential functions of her job
and thus was not a "qualified individual with a
disability." The court, however, disagreed with
the district court's ruling on Title III of the
ADA, which prohibits disability-based
discrimination in the provision of goods and
services by public accommodations, and remanded
the case to determine whether the mental/physical
distinction in long-term disability coverage
unlawfully discriminates "in the contents of
insurance products" under that provision.
Date: October 25, 1996
Status: Petition for rehearing en banc filed November 8,
1996; reh'g granted February 1997; brief filed
March 5, 1997; argument scheduled June 11, 1997.
Contact: EEOC Appellate Services (202) 663-4736
* Rascon v. US West Communications, Inc., No. 96-2194 (10th
Cir.)
Background: The plaintiff, a Viet Nam veteran, had worked
for the defendant for more than 20 years when
he requested four to six months medical leave
to enter an in-patient program specializing
in treating Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
Although the defendant initially granted the
plaintiff 30 days leave, which it extended
three times, it terminated him two weeks
before his final release from the program.
The court below found that the defendant had
discriminated against the plaintiff on the
basis of his disability by failing to provide
the full amount of leave requested, noting
that it was within the company's policy
allowing six months unpaid disability leave.
The court also rejected the company's defense
that the plaintiff's ADA claim was barred
because he had certified that he was "totally
disabled" when he applied for disability
benefits. The defendant appealed both
issues.
Issues: (1) Whether the plaintiff's ADA claim is barred as
a matter of law, under the doctrine of judicial
estoppel, because the plaintiff purportedly
certified that he was "totally disabled" in his
application for disability benefits under the
Social Security Act.
(2) Whether the district court properly held that
the defendant violated the ADA by failing to
provide a reasonable period of unpaid leave to
permit the plaintiff to obtain necessary treatment
for his disability.
Status: Amicus brief filed March 17, 1997
Contact: EEOC Appellate Services (202) 663-4736
* Roe v. Cheyenne Mountain Conference Resort, No. 96-1086
(10th Cir.)
Background: The defendant instituted a drug and alcohol
policy that, in relevant part, required
employees to report to its director of human
resources all prescription drugs they expect
to take. Roe, an accounts manager for the
defendant, filed the instant lawsuit,
alleging that requiring employees to disclose
their lawful prescription drug use violates
the ADA, among other laws. Roe has exercise-
induced asthma, which requires her to take a
prescription drug to avoid difficulties in
breathing. The district court granted the
plaintiff's summary judgment motion on her
ADA claim, recognizing that section
102(d)(4)(A) of the ADA bars an employer from
making disability-related inquiries of its
employees and that requiring employees to
disclose their prescriptions would "force
[them] to reveal their disabilities" in
violation of the ADA. The lower court,
however, denied the plaintiff's requests for
an injunction and attorney's fees.
Issues: (1) Whether the district court abused its
discretion by failing to enjoin the defendant from
continuing the policy of requiring employees to
disclose their prescription medicines after the
court found that the policy violated the ADA.
(2) Whether the district court erred in failing to
award attorney's fees to the prevailing plaintiff
in this ADA action because this case presented "a
novel legal issue."
Status: Amicus brief filed May 6, 1996; argued November
19, 1996. Second amicus brief filed October 7,
1996, concerning procedural issues and whether
section 102(d)(4)(A)'s prohibition on disability-
related inquiries protects all employees,
including those who do not have disabilities;
court denied on October 22, 1996.
Contact: EEOC Appellate Services (202) 663-4736
* Runnebaum v. NationsBank, No. 94-2200 (4th Cir.)
Background: The plaintiff claimed that the defendant bank
discharged him because of his disability,
asymptomatic HIV infection. The lower court
granted the defendant's motion for summary
judgment, finding insufficient evidence to
show that the discharge was based on the
plaintiff's HIV status instead of his
performance. A divided panel of the Fourth
Circuit reversed, finding that the plaintiff
had introduced sufficient evidence to
withstand summary judgment. The panel also
held, however, that asymptomatic HIV status
was not a per se disability and was not a
substantial limitation on a major life
activity under 42 U.S.C. 12102 (2)(A).
Nonetheless, the panel further ruled that the
plaintiff was covered by the ADA because the
bank regarded him as disabled.
Issues: (1) Whether asymptomatic HIV infection is a
disability under section 12102(2)(A) because it
substantially limits major life activities such as
procreation and intimate sexual relations.
(2) Whether asymptomatic HIV infection is a
disability under section 12102(2)(C) because the
defendant regarded it as a disability.
Status: Brief as amicus curiae in Support of Rehearing and
Rehearing En Banc filed February 21, 1997
Contact: EEOC Appellate Services (202) 663-4736
Sanders v. Arneson Products, Inc., No. 95-15349 (9th Cir.)
Background: Sanders worked as a production manager for
the defendant when he was diagnosed with
cancer. The defendant granted a leave of
absence to Sanders for surgery and allowed
him to work part-time while he received
chemotherapy. Shortly after returning to
work, however, Sanders requested another
leave of absence because he was experiencing
psychological problems as a result of his
bout with cancer. When he later requested an
extension of this leave with a date certain
as to when he could return to work without
restriction, the company terminated his
employment.
Issue: Whether an individual with a disability who is
temporarily unable to work at the time of an
employment decision may be a "qualified individual
with a disability" within the meaning of the ADA.
Decided: The Ninth Circuit ruled that the psychological
difficulties experienced by the plaintiff as a
result of being diagnosed with cancer did not
constitute a "disability" under the ADA because
they were temporary in nature.
Date: August 6, 1996
Contact: EEOC Appellate Services (202) 663-4736
* Swanks v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority,
No. 96-7078 (D.C. Cir.)
Background: The plaintiff, a special police officer for
WMATA for three years, claimed he was
terminated because he had requested as a
reasonable accommodation an increase in the
amount of exercise during his work day to
reduce the incidents of urinary incontinence
caused by his spina bifida. The defendant
denied this request and terminated Swanks
approximately two months later.
Subsequently, Swanks applied for disability
benefits, certifying that he was "totally
disabled." Although the lower court found
that genuine issues of material fact existed
as to whether the plaintiff's discharge was
discriminatory, it granted the defendant's
summary judgment motion on the ground that
the plaintiff's certification of total
disability precluded him from showing that he
is qualified to perform the essential
functions of his job.
Issue: Whether the district court erred in ruling that
the plaintiff was precluded as a matter of law
from maintaining a claim of unlawful discharge
under the ADA because, following his termination,
the plaintiff applied for and received disability
benefits under the SSA.
Status: Amicus brief filed February 26, 1997; argued March
20, 1997
Contact: EEOC Appellate Services (202) 663-4736
* Talavera v. School Board of Palm Beach County, et al., No.
96-4756 (11th Cir.)
Background: Talavera alleged that the defendants failed
to provide her with a reasonable
accommodation for her severe back impairment
and terminated her from her clerical position
because of her disability. Subsequently,
Talavera was granted disability benefits
under the federal social security program
after certifying on her application that she
was "totally disabled." Applying the
doctrine of judicial estoppel, the district
court granted the defendants' motion for
summary judgment and found that the
plaintiff's ADA claim was barred. According
to the court, the plaintiff could not be both
totally disabled under the Social Security
Act and "qualified" to perform the essential
functions of her job under the ADA.
Issue: Whether the district court erred in ruling that
the plaintiff was judicially estopped from
maintaining an ADA claim because of her statement
on a social security disability benefit
application that she was "totally disabled."
Status: Amicus brief filed October 18, 1996.
Contact: EEOC Appellate Services (202) 663-4736
* Williams v. Avnet, et al., No. 96-1072 (4th Cir.)
Background: The plaintiff claimed that the defendant
violated the ADA by refusing to restructure
her job to accommodate her back impairment
and by refusing to reassign her to other
vacant positions for which she was qualified.
In a grant of summary judgment to the
defendant, the lower court ruled that the
plaintiff was not an "individual with a
disability" within the meaning of the ADA
because she did not show that her physical
impairment "generally foreclosed" her from
obtaining comparable employment. The court
further held that the plaintiff's proposed
accommodations were unreasonable as a matter
of law.
Issues: (1) Whether a plaintiff can establish that she has
a "disability" within the meaning of the ADA
without showing that she is "generally foreclosed"
from comparable employment where there was
evidence that her impairment resulted in
substantial limitations on "major life activities"
other than working.
(2) Whether the trial court erred in applying the
McDonnell Douglas standard to the plaintiff's
claim that she was denied reasonable
accommodation.
(3) Whether an employer must provide, unless it
can show "undue hardship," a reasonable
accommodation to an employee's disability even if
the accommodation is not "obviously reasonable."
(4) Whether reassignment to a vacant position must
be provided unless it would cause an "undue
hardship."
Decided: The appellate court affirmed the grant of summary
judgment. Although the court agreed with the EEOC
that lifting and working are "major life
activities," it determined that the plaintiff had
not shown that she was "significantly restricted"
in those major life activities, and thus was not
"disabled."
Date: November 27, 1996
Contact: EEOC Appellate Services (202) 663-4736
ISSUES
Note: A = Active
R = Resolved
T = Trial Docket
Ap = Appealed (Appellate Docket)
C = Amicus Curiae (Appellate Docket)
1. Accessibility
R, T EEOC v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial School, et al., Civil
Action No. 94-0314, resolved June 4, 1996 (D.D.C.)
A, Ap EEOC v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial School, et al.,
No. 96-5239, brief as appellant filed January 8, 1997
(D.C. Cir.)
2. Arbitration
R, C McCord v. Burlington Northern Railroad Co., No. 94-6574,
summary judgment against plaintiff reversed on May 30, 1995
(11th Cir.)
3. Association
A, T EEOC v. Paragon Properties Co., Civil Action No. 9660080,
filed April 4, 1996 (E.D. Mich.)
4. Confidentiality:
R, T EEOC v. 1348 Division Corp. d/b/a The Pub, Civil Action No.
EV-94-190-C, resolved October 23, 1995 (S.D. Ind.)
A, T EEOC v. Add-Staff, Inc. and General Motors Corp., Civil
Action No. 96-70840, filed February 23, 1996 (E.D. Mich.)
R, T EEOC v. Columbia Aluminum Recycling, Ltd., Civil Action No.
94-C-00301, resolved August 4, 1994 (N.D. Ill.)
R, T EEOC v. Gulf Grinding Co., Inc. d/b/a Gulf Precision
Industries, Inc., Civil Action No. H-95-0382, resolved July
10, 1995 (S.D. Tex.)
R, T EEOC v. Indiana FineBlanking Division of MPI International,
Inc., Civil Action No. 3:93-CV-0849-RM, resolved November
9, 1994 (N.D. Ind.)
A, T EEOC v. John Deere Commercial Products, Inc., Civil Action
No. 196-193, filed November 19, 1996 (S.D. Ga.)
A, T EEOC v. Kaiser Permanente, Civil Action No.C-94-4368 CAL
ENE, filed December 20, 1994 (N.D. Cal.)
R, T John Doe & EEOC v. Kohn Nast & Graf, et al., Civil Action
No. 93-CV-4510, resolved October 31, 1994 (E.D. Pa.)
A, T EEOC v. Nelson and Associates/Third East Hills Park
Cooperative, Inc., Civil Action No. 95-0888, filed June 12,
1995 (W.D. Pa.)
A, T EEOC v. Positive Resources, Inc., Civil Action No. 4:96 CV
01855LOD, filed September 16, 1996 (E.D. Mo.)
R, T EEOC v. Puff's of Petosky, Civil Action No. 1:95-CV-314,
resolved November 16, 1995 (W.D. Mich.)
R, T EEOC v. Schaad Detective Agency, Civil Action No. 95-4057,
resolved December 30, 1996 (D.N.J.)
R, T EEOC v. Southern Starr Foods, Inc., Civil Action No.
CIV-95-872-L, resolved July 3, 1996 (W.D. Okla.)
R, T EEOC v. Spectacor Management Group/Spectacor, Inc., Civil
Action No. 95-2688, resolved June 22, 1995 (E.D. Pa.)
R, T EEOC v. Transitional Living Systems, Inc., Civil Action No.
94-73445, resolved October 17, 1994 (E.D. Mich.)
R, T EEOC v. Wible Lumber, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:93-CV-0288,
resolved March 28, 1994 (N.D. Ind.)
5. Demotion:
R, T EEOC v. North Jackson Hotel Properties, Inc., d/b/a Ramada
Renaissance, Civil Action No. 3:95-CV-474-BrN, resolved June
19, 1996 (S.D. Miss)
A, T EEOC & Michael J. Boyle v. R. J. Gallagher Co., Civil Action
No. H-94-2247, filed November 4, 1994 (S.D. Tex.)
R, C Ellison v. Software Spectrum, Inc., No. 95-10704, resolved
July 10, 1996 (5th Cir.)
6. Disability Benefits:
R, T EEOC v. CNA Insurance Companies, et al., Civil Action No. 95
C 5835, resolved January 19, 1996 (E.D. Ill.)
R, Ap EEOC v. CNA Insurance Companies, et al., No. 96-1304,
resolved September 27, 1996 (7th Cir.)
A, C Leonard F. v. Israel Discount Bank of New York, No. 95-6420,
remanded to the district court on June 13, 1996 (2nd Cir.)
R, C Parker v. Metropolitan Life, No. 95-5269, resolved October
25, 1996 (6th Cir.)
7. Disability-Related Inquiries:
A, T EEOC v. Add-Staff, Inc. and General Motors Corp., Civil
Action No. 96-70840, filed February 23, 1996 (E.D. Mich.)
R, T EEOC v. ADPS Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a ADPS Computer World,
Civil Action No. C94- 0407, resolved March 2, 1995 (W.D.
Wash.)
R, T EEOC v. American Golf Corp. d/b/a Continental Golf Course,
Civil Action No. 95-2067PHX SMM, resolved November 7, 1996
(D. Ariz.)
A, T EEOC v. Cheers: Funeatery, Civil Action No. 95CV5828(JHR),
filed November 15, 1995 (D.N.J.)
R, T EEOC v. Community Coffee Co., Inc., Civil Action No. H-94-1061,
resolved June 29, 1995 (S.D. Tex.)
R, T EEOC v. Cooper Industries, Inc., d/b/a Maryville Forge,
Civil Action No. 95-6021-CV-53-6, resolved September 5, 1995
(W.D. Mo.)
A, T EEOC v. Fostoria Restaurants, Inc., d/b/a Taco Bell of
Fostoria, Ohio, Civil Action No. 3:97-CV-7725, filed March
7, 1997 (N.D. Ohio)
R, T EEOC v. Gabbard & Co., Inc., Civil Action No. 94-CV-72976
DT, resolved October 25, 1995 (E.D. Mich.)
R, T EEOC v. Glenn View Manor, Inc., d/b/a Glennview Manor
Nursing Home, Civil Action No. 4:96CV 0849, resolved
March 27, 1997 (N.D. Ohio)
R, T EEOC v. Guardsmark, Inc., Civil Action No. 3:94CV660LN,
resolved October 10, 1995 (S.D. Miss.)
A, T EEOC v. Hatcher, Stubbs, Land, Hollis and Rothschild, Civil
Action No. 4:96-CV-187(JRE), filed November 21, 1996 (M.D.
Ga.)
R, T EEOC v. Herzog Stone Products, Inc., Civil Action No. 94-2016,
resolved February 4, 1994 (W.D. Ark.)
A, T EEOC v. John Deere Commercial Products, Inc., Civil Action
No. 196-193, filed November 19, 1996 (S.D. Ga.)
A, T EEOC v. Kaiser Permanente, Civil Action No.C-94-4368 CAL
ENE, filed December 20, 1994 (N.D. Cal.)
R, T John Doe & EEOC v. Kohn Nast & Graf, et al., Civil Action
No. 93-CV-4510, resolved October 31, 1994 (E.D. Pa.)
R, T EEOC v. Litco Petroleum, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:94-CV-280-D-D,
resolved August 8, 1995 (N.D. Miss.)
R, T EEOC v. M. A. Hanna Resin Distribution Co., Civil Action No.
396CV0443-X, resolved December 20, 1996 (N.D. Tex.)
A, T EEOC v. Nelson and Associates/Third East Hills Park
Cooperative, Inc., Civil Action No. 95-0888, filed June 12,
1995 (W.D. Pa.)
A, T EEOC v. Olsten Staffing Services, Inc., Civil Action No.
1:95-CV-1423, filed June 27, 1995 (N.D. Ohio)
A, T EEOC v. Perfection Steel Treating, Inc., Civil Action No.
97-70306, filed January 24, 1997 (E.D. Mich.)
R, T EEOC v. Pinnacle Holdings, Inc., d/b/a Villa Ocotillo, Civil
Action No. CIV-95-0708-PHX RGS, resolved October 24, 1995
(D. Ariz.)
A, T EEOC v. Positive Resources, Inc., Civil Action No. 4:96 CV
01855LOD, filed September 16, 1996 (E.D. Mo.)
R, T EEOC v. Prevo's Family Markets, Inc., Civil Action No.
1:95-CV-446, resolved October 29, 1996 (W.D. Mich.)
R, T EEOC v. Puff's of Petosky, Civil Action No. 1:95-CV-314,
resolved November 16, 1995 (W.D. Mich.)
R, T Harry Hocutt, EEOC, et al. v. Shelby Steel Fabricators,
Inc., Civil Action No. CV-93-B-2679-S, resolved June 25,
1996 (N.D. Ala.)
R, T EEOC v. Southern Starr Foods, Inc., Civil Action No.
CIV-95-872-L, resolved July 3, 1996 (W.D. Okla.)
R, T EEOC v. Texas Bus Lines, Civil Action No. H-95-3981,
resolved June 10, 1996 (S.D. Tex.)
R, T EEOC v. Transitional Living Systems, Inc., Civil Action No.
94-73445, resolved October 17, 1994 (E.D. Mich.)
R, T EEOC v. V. C. Tank Lines, Inc., Civil Action No.
94-CV-72163-OT, resolved July 5, 1995 (E.D. Mich.)
R, T EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Civil Action No. 95-1199JP,
resolved February 24, 1997 (D.N.M.)
R, T EEOC v. Wes-Tex Drilling Co., Civil Action No. SA-95-CA-553,
resolved December 15, 1995 (W.D. Tex.)
A, C Roe v. Cheyenne Mountain Conference Resort, No. 96-1086,
amicus brief filed May 6, 1996; second amicus filed October
7, 1996, denied by court on October 22, 1996 (10th Cir.)
8. Dual Filing
R, C Maldonado v. Pfizer Pharmaceutical, No. 94-1365 (PG),
resolved May 4, 1995 (D.P.R.)
9. Forced Medical Leave:
A, T EEOC v. The Heil Company, Civil Action No. 97-S-0235-M,
filed January 29, 1997 (N.D. Ala.)
R, T EEOC v. Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co., Civil
Action No. 4.96CV47, resolved November 4, 1996 (E.D. Va.)
R, T EEOC v. North Jackson Hotel Properties, Inc., d/b/a Ramada
Renaissance, Civil Action No. 3:95-CV-474-BrN, resolved June
19, 1996 (S.D. Miss)
R, T EEOC v. Prevo's Family Markets, Inc., Civil Action No.
1:95-CV-446, resolved October 29, 1996 ( W.D. Mich.)
R, T EEOC v. The Star Ledger, Civil Action No. 95-4405 (JCL),
resolved April 24, 1996 (D.N.J.)
R, T EEOC v. The Wood Co., Civil Action No. 94-CV-4029, resolved
December 22, 1994 (E.D. Pa.)
10. Harassment:
R, T EEOC v. G & M Foods, Inc., d/b/a McDonald's, Civil Action
No. 3:96 CV-318-S, resolved November 26, 1996 (W.D. Ky.)
A, T EEOC v. General Electric Co., Civil Action No. 97CV0053,
filed February 6, 1997 (N.D. Ind.)
A, T EEOC v. Westco, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. S-96-0253-JLQ,
filed May 6, 1996 (E.D. Wash.)
11. Health Insurance Coverage:
R, C Carparts Distribution Center v. AWANE, 37 F.3d 12 (1st Cir.
1994)
A, T Carparts Distribution Center, Inc., et al. v. Automotive
Wholesaler's Association of New England, Inc. et al., Civil
Action No. C-92-592-M, filed February 22, 1996 (D.N.H.)
R, T EEOC v. Allied Services Division Welfare Fund, Southern
Pacific Lines; Allied Services Division, Civil Action No.
93-5076-WMB, resolved September 28, 1993 (C.D. Cal.)
A, T EEOC v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Missouri, Civil Action No.
4:94-MC-161 CED, filed July 7, 1994) (E.D. Mo.)
R, T EEOC v. The Gage Co., Civil Action No. 94-CV-72089-DT,
resolved July 11, 1994 (E.D. Mich.)
R, T Estate of Mark Kadinger, et al. & EEOC v. International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, et al., Civil Action No.
3-93-159, resolved December 21, 1993 (D. Minn.)
R, T EEOC v. John Ascuaga's Nugget Casino, Civil Action No.
N-95-00016-ECR, resolved January 31, 1995 (D. Nev.)
R, T EEOC v. Laborers District Council Building & Construction
Health & Welfare Fund, Civil Action No. 94-CV-3971, resolved
January 5, 1995 (E.D. Pa.)
R, T EEOC v. Lee Data Corp., Civil Action No. CV94-3875MRP,
resolved October 5, 1995 (C.D. Cal.)
R, T EEOC v. Mason Tenders Welfare Trust Fund, et al., Civil
Action No. 93-Civ-1154-JES, resolved January 22, 1996
(S.D.N.Y.)
R, T EEOC v. Metro Traffic Control, Inc. & Southern Benefits
Services, Inc., Civil Action No. 95-Civ-0278 AGS, resolved
April 11, 1997 (S.D.N.Y.)
R, T EEOC & Johnson v. Monroe Foods, Inc., et al., Civil Action
No. Y93-2925, resolved November 28, 1994 (D. Md.)
A, T EEOC v. Pacific West Co., LTD d/b/a/ Holiday Inn, Crowne
Plaza, Civil Action No. 96-3647, filed May 23, 1996 (C.D.
Cal.)
A, T EEOC & Michael J. Boyle v. R. J. Gallagher Co., Civil Action
No. H-94-2247, filed November 4, 1994 (S.D. Tex.)
R, T EEOC v. Spark's Nugget, Inc., d/b/a John Ascuaga's Nugget
Casino, Civil Action No. N-96-0502 ECT, resolved December
20, 1996 (D. Nev.)
R, T EEOC v. Tarrant Distributors, Inc., Civil Action No.
H-94-3001, resolved October 11, 1994 (S.D. Tex.)
R, T EEOC v. Tokheim Corp. and Local Union No. 1539, Int'l Union,
et al., Civil Action No. 1:95-CV-0048, resolved April
29, 1996 (N.D. Ind.)
R, T EEOC v. United Welfare Fund, et al., Civil Action No. 96-CIV
7829, resolved October 17, 1997 (S.D.N.Y.)
R, C Gonzales v. Garner Fast Foods, Inc., No. 95-8533, resolved
August 2, 1996 (11th Cir.)
R, C Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund v. Donaghey, et
al., Civil Action No. 93 Civ. 1585 JES, defendant's summary
judgment motion denied November 19, 1993 (S.D.N.Y.)
12. Hiring:
R, C Cook v. Rhode Island, Dept. of Mental Health, Retardation,
and Hospitals, 10 F.3d 17 (1st Cir. 1993)
A, C DeForrest v. Stanley Smith Security, Inc., et al., No.
A072441, amicus brief filed July 10, 1996 (Cal. Ct. App.)
R, T EEOC v. Aeroparts Mfg. & Repair, Inc., Civil Action No.
CIV-94-11108SC, resolved February 12, 1996 (D.N.M.)
R, T EEOC v. American Golf Corp. d/b/a Continental Golf Course,
Civil Action No. 95-2067PHX SMM, resolved November 7, 1996
(D. Ariz.)
R, T EEOC v. Bailey Excavating, Inc., Civil Action No.
94-CV-72752-DT, resolved April 25, 1995 (E.D. Mich.)
R, T EEOC v. Baker Installations, Inc., Civil Action No.
2:97-CV-256, resolved march 10, 1997 (E.D. Va.)
R, T EEOC v. Ball Foods, Inc., d/b/a Kentucky Fried Chicken,
Civil Action No. J-C-95-68, resolved December 7, 1995 (E.D.
Ark.)
A, T EEOC v. Bethlehem Steel Shipyard at Sparrows Point, Civil
Action No. B-95-2676, filed September 11, 1995 (D. Md.)
A, T EEOC v. Chemcast Corp., Civil Action No. 96-74465, filed
September 26, 1996 (E.D. Mich.)
R, T EEOC v. The Chrysler Corp., Civil Action No. 94-74979,
resolved March 6, 1996 (N.D. Mich.)
A, T EEOC v. The Chrysler Corp., Civil Action No. 96-74184, filed
September 6, 1996 (E.D. Mich.)
R, T EEOC v. Columbia Aluminum Recycling, Ltd., Civil Action No.
94-C-00301, resolved August 4, 1994 (N.D. Ill.)
R, T EEOC v. Community Coffee Co., Inc., Civil Action No.
H-94-1061, resolved June 29, 1995 (S.D. Tex.)
R, T EEOC v. Cooper Industries, Inc., d/b/a Maryville Forge,
Civil Action No. 95-6021-CV-53-6, resolved September 5, 1995
(W.D. Mo.)
R, T EEOC v. Dolphin Cruise Line, Inc., Civil Action No. 95-292,
resolved October 30, 1996 (S.D. Fla.)
A, T EEOC v. Equitable Bag Co., Civil Action No. 1:96CV0367,
filed June 12, 1996 (E.D. Tex.)
A, T EEOC v. Exxon Corp., Civil Action No. 395-CV1311-D, filed
June 28, 1995 (N.D. Tex.)
R, T EEOC v. FFV Aerotech Co., Civil Action No. 3-95-0622,
resolved December 2, 1996 (M.D. Tenn.)
R, T EEOC v. Gayatri, Inc., d/b/a Instrumatics, Civil Action No.
1:94-CV-1147, resolved April 13, 1995 (N.D. Ohio)
R, T EEOC v. Herzog Stone Products, Inc., Civil Action No.
94-2016, resolved February 4, 1994 (W.D. Ark.)
A, T EEOC v. Jamaica Hospital Nursing Home Co., Civil Action No.
CV 97 1541, filed March 31, 1997 (E.D.N.Y.)
R, T EEOC v. Joslyn Manufacturing Co., Civil Action No.
95-C-4956, resolved August 16, 1996 (N.D. Ill.)
R, T EEOC v. Mercy Health Promotion, Inc., d/b/a Mercy Care
Center, Civil Action No. 95-6218-TH, resolved June 28, 1996
(D. Or.)
A, T EEOC v. Mercy Hospital and Medical Center, Civil Action No.
960-6350, filed September 30, 1996 (N.D. Ill.)
R, T EEOC v. Microchip Technology, Inc., Civil Action No.
95-1387PHXROS, resolved February 7, 1997 (D. Ariz.)
R, T EEOC v. Monsanto Co. & Chevron Chemical Corp., Civil Action
No. 4:94-CV-1152, resolved June 10, 1996 (E.D. Mo.)
A, T EEOC v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation a/k/a
Amtrak, Civil Action No. 1:96CV02819, filed December 20,
1996 (D.D.C.)
R, T EEOC v. North Memorial Medical Center, Civil Action No.
3-95-250, resolved April 26, 1996 (D. Minn.)
R, T EEOC v. Potlatch Corp., et al., Civil Action No.
CIV95-0301-N-EJL, resolved May 21, 1996 (D. Idaho)
R, T EEOC v. Premier Pacific Seafoods, Inc., Civil Action No.
C95-1552, resolved April 29, 1996 (W.D. Wash)
R, T EEOC v. Reiter Automotive Globe, Inc., Civil Action No.
2:96CV 547RL, resolved February 18, 1997 (N.D. Ind.)
A, T EEOC v. Rockwell International Corp., Inc., Civil Action
No.95C-3824, filed June 30, 1995 (N.D. Ill.)
R, T EEOC v. S and C Electric Co., Inc., Civil Action No.
94-C-2308, resolved June 17, 1994 (N.D. Ill.)
R, T EEOC v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial School, et. al., Civil
Action No. 94-314, resolved June 4, 1996 (D.D.C.)
A, Ap EEOC v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial School, et al.,
No. 96-5239, brief as appellant filed January 8, 1997
(D.C. Cir.)
R, T EEOC v. Scrivner, Inc. - Kansas Division d/b/a Jubilee
Foods, Civil Action No. 95-1138-MLB, resolved March 22, 1995
(D. Kan.)
R, T EEOC v. Sharp Manufacturing Co. of America, Civil Action No.
95-2405, resolved May 21, 1996 (W. D. Tenn.)
R, T Harry Hocutt, EEOC, et al. v. Shelby Steel Fabricators,
Inc., Civil Action No. CV-93-B-2679-S, resolved June 25,
1996 (N.D. Ala.)
A, T EEOC v. Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Co., Civil Action
No. EV 96 243-C, filed November 18, 1996 (S.D. Ind.)
R, T EEOC v. Southern Starr Foods, Inc., Civil Action No.
CIV-95-872-L, resolved July 3, 1996 (W.D. Okla.)
R, T EEOC v. Texas Bus Lines, Civil Action No. H-95-3981,
resolved June 10, 1996 (S.D. Tex.)
A, T EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Civil Action No. CIV-94-1076-LH,
filed September 22, 1994 (D.N.M.)
R, T EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Civil Action No. 95-1199JP,
resolved February 24, 1997 (D.N.M.)
A, T EEOC v. Williams Electronics Games, Inc., Civil Action No.
94-C-5384, filed September 1, 1994 (N.D. Ill.)
13. Hostile Work Environment:
R, T EEOC v. The Chrysler Corp., Civil Action Nos. 95-CV-71144-DT
and 95-CV-73035- DT, resolved June 10, 1996 (E.D. Mich.)
R, T John Doe & EEOC v. Kohn Nast & Graf, et al., Civil Action
No. 93-CV-4510, resolved October 31, 1994 (E.D. Pa.)
A, T EEOC v. MTS Corp., d/b/a SUPERCUTS, and TMS, Inc., d/b/a
SUPERCUTS, Civil Action No. CIV-94-1473 LH, filed December
28, 1994 (D.N.M.)
14. Limiting, Segregating, and/or Classifying:
R, T EEOC v. The Chrysler Corp., Civil Action Nos. 95-CV-71144-DT
and 95-CV-73035- DT, resolved June 10, 1996 (E.D. Mich.)
R, T EEOC v. The Gage Co., Civil Action No. 94-CV-72089-DT,
resolved July 11, 1994 (E.D. Mich.)
R, T Estate of Mark Kadinger, et al. & EEOC v. International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, et al., Civil Action No.
3-93-159, resolved December 21, 1993 (D. Minn.)
R, T EEOC v. John Ascuaga's Nugget Casino, Civil Action No.
N-95-00016-ECR, resolved January 31, 1995 (D. Nev.)
R, T EEOC v. Laborers District Council Building & Construction
Health & Welfare Fund, Civil Action No. 94-CV-3971, resolved
January 5, 1995 (E.D. Pa.)
R, T EEOC & Johnson v. Monroe Foods, Inc., et al., Civil Action
No. Y93-2925, resolved November 28, 1994 (D. Md.)
R, T EEOC v. Monsanto Co. & Chevron Chemical Corp., Civil Action
No. 4:94-CV-1152, resolved June 10, 1996 (E.D. Mo.)
R, T EEOC v. Tarrant Distributors, Inc., Civil Action No.
H-94-3001, resolved october 11, 1994 (S.D. Tex.)
R, T EEOC v. Tokheim Corp. and Local Union No. 1539, Int'l Union,
et al., Civil Action No. 1:95-CV-0048, resolved April
29, 1996 (N.D. Ind.)
A, T EEOC v. United Parcel Service, Civil Action No. C-97 00961,
filed March 20, 1997 (N.D. Cal.)
15. Post and/or Keep Posted EEOC Notices:
R, T EEOC v. Wible Lumber, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:93-CV-0288,
resolved March 28, 1994 (N.D. Ind.)
16. Promotion:
R, T EEOC v. Atlas Processing Co., Civil Action No. CV-94-2048,
resolved December 14, 1995 (W.D. La.)
R, T EEOC v. Georgia Pacific Corp., Civil Action No. 94-4129,
resolved January 23, 1996 (W.D. Ark.)
R, T EEOC v. Georgia Pacific Corp. & Int'l Woodworkers of America
Local 5-475, Civil Action No. 95-1035, resolved December 2,
1996 (W.D. Ark.)
R, C Fink v. New York City Department of Personnel, No. 94-7699,
resolved May 19, 1995 (2nd Cir.)
17. Qualified Individual with a Disability
A, Ap Castellano v. The City of New York, et al., No 96-7920,
amicus brief filed November 6, 1997 (2nd Cir.)
A, C Griffith v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 96-6361, amicus brief
filed December 30, 1996 (6th Cir.)
R, C Harris v. Marathon Oil Co., No. 96-50202, resolved February
10, 1997 (5th Cir.)
R, C McNemar v. The Disney Stores, Inc., No. 95-1590, resolved
July 31, 1996, rehearing en banc denied September 16, 1996
(3rd Cir.); cert. denied February 18, 1997
A, C Murphy v. UPS, No. 96-3380, amicus brief filed February 27,
1997 (10th Cir.)
R, C Parker v. Metropolitan Life, No. 95-5269, resolved October
25, 1996 (6th Cir.)
A, C Rascon v. US West Communications, Inc., No. 96-2194, amicus
brief filed March 17, 1997 (10th Cir.)
A, C Swanks v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority,
No. 96-7078, amicus brief filed October 18, 1996 (D.C. Cir.)
A, C Talavera v. School Board of Palm Beach County, et al., No.
96-4756, amicus brief filed October 18, 1996 (11th Cir.)
18. Reasonable Accommodation:
A, C Aka v. Washington Hospital Center, No. 96-7089, amicus brief
filed November 1, 1996 (D.C. Cir.)
R, C Benson v. Northwest Airlines, 4 AD Cases 1234 (8th Cir.
1995)
R, C Derbis v. United States Shoe Corp., No. 93-2312, resolved
September 29, 1995 (4th Cir.) (unpublished)
R, C Eckles v. Consolidated Rail Corp., et al, No. 95-2856,
resolved August 14, 1996 (7th Cir.)
R, T EEOC v. AlliedSignal Aerospace, Civil Action No. 92-2776
(WHW), resolved February 29, 1996 (D.N.J.)
A, Ap EEOC v. Amego, Inc., No. 96-1837, EEOC brief as
appellant filed September 17, 1996; reply brief filed
November 6, 1996; argued December 5, 1996. (1st Cir.)
A, T EEOC v. Ameripol Synpol Corp. and Oil, Chemical and Atomic
Workers International Union and its Local Union No. 4-228,
Civil Action No. 1: 95CV349, filed June 21, 1995 (E.D. Tex.)
R, T EEOC v. AMS Properties, Inc., Civil Action No. 95-WY-1585,
resolved December 27, 1995 (D. Col.)
R, T EEOC v. Arrow Concrete Co., Civil Action No. 6:94-0940,
resolved May 29, 1995 (S.D. W.Va.)
R, T EEOC v. Bentley Tool, Inc., Civil Action No. 95-70575,
resolved May 8, 1996 (E.D. Mich.)
R, T EEOC v. Big Rivers Electric Corp. & International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1701, Civil Action
No. 94-0219-0 (C), resolved December 27, 1995 (W.D. Ky.)
R, T EEOC v. Bloomingdale's, Inc., Civil Action No. 4-95-507,
resolved January 15, 1997 (D. Minn.)
R, T EEOC v. Brandywine Convalescent Center, Civil Action No.
94-695, resolved August 31, 1995 (E.D. Del.)
R, T EEOC v. Chandler Nursing Center, Inc., Civil Action No.
3-95V-0042T, resolved April 2, 1996 (N.D. Tex.)
R, T EEOC v. Chemtech International Corp., et al., Civil Action
No. H-94-2848, resolved August 23, 1995 (S.D. Tex.)
R, T EEOC v. The Chrysler Corp., Civil Action Nos. 95-CV-71144-DT
and 95-CV-73035- DT, resolved June 10, 1996 (E.D. Mich.)
A, T EEOC v. City Rescue Mission, Inc., Civil Action No.
95-862-civ-J.20, filed August 31, 1995 (M.D. Fla.)
A, T EEOC v. CNA Insurance Companies, et al., Civil Action No.
97-C-2198, filed March 31, 1997 (N.D. Ill.)
A, T EEOC v. Complete Auto Transit, Inc., Civil Action No.
95-73427 (DPH), filed August 25, 1995 (E.D. Mich.)
R, T EEOC v. The Dial Corp., Civil Action No. 4:95CV01726LOD,
resolved October 6, 1996 (E.D. Mo.)
A, T EEOC v. Federal Express Corp., Civil Action No.
96-P-33108-S, filed November 27, 1996 (N.D. Ala.)
R, T EEOC v. Furniture Fair, Inc., Civil Action No.
4:95-CV-49-H3, resolved October 2, 1996 (E.D.N.C.)
R, T EEOC v. G & M Foods, Inc., d/b/a McDonald's, Civil Action
No. 3:96 CV-318-S, resolved November 26, 1996 (W.D. Ky.)
R, T EEOC v. Gabbard & Co., Inc., Civil Action No. 94-CV-72976
DT, resolved October 25, 1995 (E.D. Mich.)
R, T EEOC v. The Gage Co., Civil Action No. 94-CV-72089-DT,
resolved July 11, 1994 (E.D. Mich.)
A, T EEOC v. Gates, Hudson and Associates, Inc., et al., Civil
Action No. AW-96-2614, filed August 20, 1996 (D. Md.)
R, T EEOC v. Georgia Pacific Corp. & Int'l Woodworkers of America
Local 5-475, Civil Action No. 95-1035, resolved December 9,
1996 (W.D. Ark.)
R, T EEOC v. Greyhound Lines, Civil Action No. 95-C-652, resolved
January 30, 1997 (W.D. Wis.)
R, T EEOC v. Gulf Grinding Co., Inc. d/b/a Gulf Precision
Industries, Inc., Civil Action No. H-95-0382, resolved July
10, 1995 (S.D. Tex.)
A, T EEOC v. The Hertz Corp., Civil Action No. 96 72421, filed
May 24, 1996 (E.D. Mich.)
R, T EEOC v. Hillcrest Living Center, Civil Action No.
95-CV-72873DT, resolved August 7, 1996 (E.D. Mich.)
R, T EEOC v. Hook-Up, Inc., Civil Action No. 96-CV-3136, resolved
January 3, 1997 (E.D. Pa.)
R, T EEOC v. Kinney Shoe Corp., Civil Action No. 94-0069-H,
resolved February 14, 1996 (W.D. Va.)
R, Ap EEOC v. Kinney Shoe Corp., Nos. 96-1555 & 1556,
resolved January 21, 1997 (4th Cir.)
R, T EEOC v. Lake Region Mfg., Civil Action No. 3-95-509,
resolved June 28, 1996 (D. Minn.)
R, T EEOC v. Litco Petroleum, Inc., Civil Action No.
1:94-CV-280-D-D, resolved August 8, 1995 (N.D. Miss.)
R, T EEOC v. Lowe's Home Centers, Inc., Civil Action No.
2-95-CV-242, resolved May 17, 1996 (E.D. Tenn.)
A, T EEOC v. MCI Telecommunications Corp., Civil Action No.
96-2251 PHX EHC, filed September 25, 1996 (D. Ariz.)
A, T EEOC v. MTS Corp. d/b/a SUPERCUTS, and TMS, Inc., d/b/a
SUPERCUTS, Civil Action No. CIV-94-1473 LH, filed December
28, 1994 (D.N.M.)
R, T EEOC v. Necessary & Son Construction Co. d/b/a Necessary &
Son Construction Co., Civil Action No. 94-5146, resolved
March 7, 1995 (W.D. Ark.)
R, T EEOC v. Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co., Civil
Action No. 4.96CV47, November 4, 1996 (E.D. Va.)
R, T EEOC v. North Jackson Hotel Properties, Inc., d/b/a Ramada
Renaissance, Civil Action No. 3:95-CV-474-BrN, resolved June
19, 1996 (S.D. Miss.)
A, T EEOC v. Perfection Steel Treating, Inc., Civil Action No.
97-70306, filed January 24, 1997 (E.D. Mich.)
R, T EEOC v. Pinnacle Holdings, Inc., d/b/a Villa Ocotillo, Civil
Action No. CIV-95-0708-PHX RGS, resolved October 24, 1995
(D. Ariz.)
R, T EEOC v. Preferred Hose and Coupling, A Division of Preferred
Technical Group, Inc., Civil Action No. 95-0120-C H/H,
resolved April 23, 1996 (S.D. Ind.)
R, T EEOC v. Prevo's Family Markets, Inc., Civil Action No.
1:95-CV-446, resolved October 29, 1996 (W.D. Mich.)
R, T EEOC v. Puff's of Petosky, Civil Action No. 1:95-CV-314,
resolved November 16, 1995 (W.D. Mich.)
A, T EEOC & Michael J. Boyle v. R. J. Gallagher Co., Civil Action
No. H-94-2247, filed November 4, 1994 (S.D. Tex.)
R, T EEOC v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial School, et al., Civil
Action No. 94-314, resolved June 4, 1996 (D.D.C.)
A, Ap EEOC v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial School, et al.,
No. 96-5239, brief as appellant filed January 8, 1997
(D.C. Cir.)
R, T EEOC v. Sanden International (USA), Inc. and Manpower
International, Inc., Civil Action No. 4: 95-CV-37, resolved
April 18, 1995 (E.D. Tex.)
R, T EEOC v. Schaad Detective Agency, Civil Action No. 95-4057,
resolved December 30, 1996 (D.N.J.)
R, T Harry Hocutt, EEOC, et al. v. Shelby Steel Fabricators,
Inc., Civil Action No. CV-93-B-2679-S, resolved June 25,
1996 (N.D. Ala.)
A, T EEOC v. Sisters of Providence Hospital, Anchorage, Civil
Action No. A96-358 CIV, filed October 2, 1996 (D. Ala.)
A, T EEOC v. Southeast Precast Corp. d/b/a Southern Cast Stone
Co., Inc., Civil Action No. 3:94-262, filed May 9, 1994
(E.D. Tenn.)
R, T EEOC v. Spectacor Management Group/Spectacor, Inc., Civil
Action No. 95-2688, resolved June 22, 1995 (E.D. Pa.)
R, T EEOC v. The Star Ledger, Civil Action No. 95-4405 (JCL),
resolved April 24, 1996 (D.N.J.)
A, T EEOC v. Superior Distributors, Civil Action No. 96-6103
(JWB), filed December 30, 1996 (D.N.J.)
A, T EEOC v. J.R. Tobacco of North Carolina, Inc., Civil Action
No. 5:96-CV-183-H(1), filed March 1, 1996 (W.D.N.C.)
R, T EEOC v. Transkrit Corp., Civil Action No. 95-2137, resolved
December 20, 1995 (W.D. Ark.)
R, T EEOC v. Union Carbide, Civil Action No. 94-0103, resolved
April 12, 1996 (E.D. La.)
R, T EEOC v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., Civil Action No.
R-C-95-368, resolved May 20, 1996 (W.D. Ark.)
A, T EEOC v. United Airlines, Inc., Civil Action No. CIV-95-0478
LH, filed May 2, 1995 (D.N.M.)
A, T EEOC v. Valley Children's Hospital, Civil Action No.
F-97-5183, filed March 4, 1997 (E.D. Cal.)
A, T EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Civil Action No.
CIV-94-1076-LH, filed September 22, 1994 (D.N.M.)
A, T EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Civil Action No. 95-1200MV,
filed October 11, 1995 (D.N.M.)
A, T EEOC v. Washington Hospital Center, Civil Action No.
1:96CV02271, filed September 30, 1996 (D.D.C.)
R, T EEOC v. The Wood Co., Civil Action No. 94-CV-4029, resolved
December 22, 1994 (E.D. Pa.)
R, C Feliberty v. Kemper Corp., No. 95-1724, resolved October 16,
1996 (7th Cir.)
R, C Ferguson v. Western Carolina Regional Sewer Authority, No.
96-1277, resolved December 30, 1996 (4th Cir.)
R, C Fink v. New York City Department of Personnel, No. 94-7699,
resolved May 19, 1995 (2nd Cir.)
A, C Pangalos v. Prudential Insurance Co., No. 96-2022, amicus
brief filed February 13, 1997 (3rd Cir.)
A, C Rascon v. US West Communications, Inc., No. 96-2194, amicus
brief filed March 17, 1997 (10th Cir.)
R, C Sanders v. Arneson Products, Inc., No. 95-15349, resolved
August 6, 1996 (9th Cir.)
A, C Talavera v. School Board of Palm Beach County, et al., No.
96-4756, amicus brief filed October 18, 1996 (11th Cir.)
R, C Williams v. Avnet, et al., No. 96-1072, resolved November
27, 1996 (4th Cir.)
19. Record Keeping:
R, T EEOC v. Gayatri, Inc., d/b/a Instrumatics, Civil Action No.
1:94-CV-1147, resolved April 13, 1995 (N.D. Ohio)
R, T EEOC v. Monsanto Co. & Chevron Chemical Corp., Civil Action
No. 4:94-CV-1152, resolved June 10, 1996 (E.D. Mo.)
R, T EEOC v. Reiter Automotive Globe, Inc., Civil Action No.
2:96CV 547RL, resolved February 18, 1997 (N.D. Ind.)
20. Reinstatement:
A, T EEOC v. Amboy Bus Company, Inc., Civil Action No. 96-5451,
filed November 5, 1996 (E.D.N.Y.)
A, T EEOC v. Ameripol Synpol Corp. and Oil, Chemical and Atomic
Workers International Union and its Local Union No. 4-228,
Civil Action No. 1: 95CV349, filed June 21, 1995 (E.D. Tex.)
R, T EEOC v. Gabbard & Co., Inc., Civil Action No. 94-CV-72976
DT, resolved October 25, 1995 (E.D. Mich.)
R, T EEOC v. General Motors Corp., Civil Action No. 94-73888,
resolved August 7, 1995 (E.D. Mich.)
A, T EEOC v. Harvest Foods, Civil Action No. LR-C-95-408, filed
June 30, 1995 (E.D. Ark.)
A, T EEOC v. Hatcher, Stubbs, Land, Hollis and Rothschild, Civil
Action No. 4:96-CV-187(JRE), filed November 21, 1996 (M.D.
Ga.)
R, T EEOC v. Hook-Up, Inc., Civil Action No. 96-CV-3136, resolved
January 3, 1997 (E.D. Pa.)
R, T EEOC v. The Knoll Group, Civil Action No. 1:95-CV-174,
resolved August 15, 1996 (W.D. Mich.)
R, T EEOC v. Schaad Detective Agency, Civil Action No. 95-4057,
resolved December 30, 1996 (D.N.J.)
A, T EEOC v. Southeast Precast Corp. d/b/a Southern Cast Stone
Co., Inc., Civil Action No. 3:94-262, filed May 9, 1994
(E.D. Tenn.)
R, T EEOC v. Tootsie Roll Industries, Inc., Civil Action No.
95-C-0989, resolved March 29, 1996 (N.D. Ill.)
21. Retaliation:
R, T EEOC v. AlliedSignal Aerospace, Civil Action No. 92-2776
(WHW), resolved February 29, 1996 (D.N.J.)
R, T EEOC v. AMS Properties, Inc., Civil Action No. 95-WY-1585,
resolved December 27, 1995 (D. Col.)
R, T EEOC v. Litco Petroleum, Inc., Civil Action No.
1:94-CV-280-D-D, resolved August 8, 1995 (N.D. Miss.)
A, T EEOC v. Cheers: Funeatery, Civil Action No. 95CV5828(JHR),
filed November 15, 1995 (D.N.J.)
R, T John Doe & EEOC v. Kohn Nast & Graf, et al., Civil Action
No. 93-CV-4510, resolved October 31, 1994 (E.D. Pa.)
A, T EEOC v. MTS Corp. d/b/a SUPERCUTS, and TMS, Inc., d/b/a
SUPERCUTS, Civil Action No. CIV-94-1473 LH, filed December
28, 1994 (D.N.M.)
A, T EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Civil Action No. 95-1200MV,
filed October 11, 1995 (D.N.M.)
22. Termination:
R, C Austin v. Owens-Brockway Glass Container, No. 94-1213,
resolved March 12, 1996 (4th Cir. 1996)
R, C Benson v. Northwest Airlines, No. 94-2824 (8th Cir. 1995)
A, C Burch v. The Coca-Cola Co., No. 96-10990, amicus brief filed
July 10, 1996 (5th Cir.)
R, T EEOC v. 1348 Division Corp. d/b/a The Pub, Civil Action No.
EV-94-190-C, resolved October 23, 1995 (S.D. Ind.)
A, T EEOC v. Add-Staff, Inc. and General Motors Corp., Civil
Action No. 96-70840, filed February 23, 1996 (E.D. Mich.)
R, T EEOC v. ADPS Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a ADPS Computer World,
Civil Action No. C94- 0407, resolved March 2, 1995 (W.D.
Wash.)
R, T EEOC & Charles Wessel v. AIC Security Investigations, Ltd,
et al., Civil Action No.92-C-7330, resolved June 7, 1995
(N.D. Ill.)
R, T EEOC v. AlliedSignal Aerospace , Civil Action No. 92-2776
(WHW), resolved February 29, 1996 (D.N.J.)
A, Ap EEOC v. Amego, Inc., No. 96-1837, EEOC brief as
appellant filed September 17, 1996 (1st Cir.)
R, T EEOC v. American Pacific Alarms, Inc., Civil Action No.
CIV95-1849PHX RGS, resolved June 28, 1996 (D. Ariz.)
R, T EEOC v. AMS Properties, Inc., Civil Action No. 95-WY-1585,
resolved December 27, 1995 (D. Col.)
A, T EEOC v. Anesthesia Associates of Richmond, Inc., Civil
Action No. 3:96-CV-1016, filed December 20, 1996 (E.D. Va.)
R, T EEOC v. Arizona Professional Towing and Recovery, Inc.,
d/b/a Shamrock Towing, Civil Action No. CIV95-2338PHXPGR,
resolved February 18, 1997 (D. Ariz.)
R, T EEOC v. Armstrong Brothers Tool Co., a subsidiary of Danaher
Corp., Civil Action No. 4-96-276, resolved September 25,
1996 (D. Minn.)
R, T EEOC v. Arrow Concrete Co., Civil Action No. 6:94-0940,
resolved May 29, 1995 (S.D. W. Va.)
R, T EEOC v. Atlas Processing Co., Civil Action No. CV-94-2048,
resolved December 14, 1995 (W.D. La.)
R, T EEOC v. Bentley Tool, Inc., Civil Action No. 95-70575,
resolved May 8, 1996 (E.D. Mich.)
R, T EEOC v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., Civil Action No. B-96-1469,
resolved January 24, 1997 (D. Md.)
R, T EEOC v. Bloomingdale's, Inc., Civil Action No. 4-95-507,
resolved January 15, 1997 (D. Minn.)
R, T EEOC v. Brandywine Convalescent Center, Civil Action No.
94-695, resolved August 31, 1995 (E.D. Del.)
R, T EEOC and John Doe v. Campbell University, Inc., Civil Action
No. 5:94-CV-301-60(3), resolved March 30, 1995 (E.D.N.C.)
R, T EEOC v. Chandler Nursing Center, Inc., Civil Action No.
3-95V-0042T, resolved April 2, 1996 (N.D. Tex.)
A, T EEOC v. Cheers: Funeatery, Civil Action No. 95CV5828(JHR),
filed November 15, 1995 (D.N.J.)
R, T EEOC v. Chemtech International Corp., et al., Civil Action
No. H-94-2848, resolved August 23, 1995 (S.D. Tex.)
A, T EEOC v. CNA Insurance Companies, et al., Civil Action No.
97-C-2198, filed March 31, 1997 (N.D. Ill.)
A, T EEOC v. Consolidated Crane Services, Inc. and Consolidated
Crane Co., Inc., Civil Action No. H-95-3285, filed June 20,
1995 (S.D. Tex.)
R, T EEOC v. Cooper Industries, Inc., d/b/a Maryville Forge,
Civil Action No. 95-6021-CV-53-6, resolved September 5, 1995
(W.D. Mo.)
R, T EEOC v. DEF Express, Inc., Civil Action No. CV-F-95-5889-REC
DLB, resolved August 13, 1996 (E.D. Cal.)
R, T EEOC v. Detroit Radiator Corp., Civil Action No. 95-78401
(PD), resolved September 6, 1996 (E.D. Mich.)
A, T EEOC v. Federal Express Corp., Civil Action No.
96-P-33108-S, filed November 27, 1996 (N.D. Ala.)
A, T EEOC v. First Union National Bank of North Carolina, Civil
Action No. 3:96-CV-528-H, filed December 12, 1996 (W.D.N.C.)
R, T EEOC v. Furniture Fair, Inc., Civil Action No.
4:95-CV-49-H3, resolved October 2, 1996 (E.D.N.C.)
R, T EEOC v. G & M Foods, Inc., d/b/a McDonald's, Civil Action
No. 3:96 CV-318-S, resolved November 26, 1996 (W.D. Ky.)
R, T EEOC v. Gabbard & Co., Inc., Civil Action No. 94-CV-72976
DT, resolved October 25, 1995 (E.D. Mich.)
R, T EEOC v. The Gage Co., Civil Action No. 94-CV-72089-DT,
resolved July 11, 1994 (E.D. Mich.)
A, T EEOC v. Gates, Hudson and Associates, Inc., et al., Civil
Action No. AW-96-2614, filed August 20, 1996 (D. Md.)
R, T EEOC v. Gencorp Automotive, Civil Action No. 3:95CV0778AS,
resolved December 6, 1996 (N.D. Ind.)
A, T EEOC v. General Electric Co., Civil Action No. 97CV0053,
filed February 6, 1997 (N.D. Ind.)
R, T EEOC v. Guardsmark, Inc., Civil Action No. 3:94CV660LN,
resolved October 10, 1995 (S.D. Miss.)
R, T EEOC v. Gulf Grinding Co., Inc. d/b/a Gulf Precision
Industries, Inc., Civil Action No. H-95-0382, resolved July
10, 1995 (S.D. Tex.)
A, T EEOC v. Health Quest Management Corp. VII d/b/a Regents Park
of Sarasota, Civil Action No. 94-1824-CIV-T-2, filed
November 22, 1994 (M.D. Fla.)
A, T EEOC v. The Heil Company, Civil Action No. 97-S-0235-M,
filed January 29, 1997 (N.D. Ala.)
R, T EEOC v. Heraeus-Amersil, Inc., Civil Action No. 95-3106
(DRD), resolved October 21, 1996 (D.N.J.)
A, T EEOC v. The Hertz Corp., Civil Action No.96-72421, filed May
24, 1996 (E.D Mich).
R, T EEOC v. Hillcrest Living Center, Civil Action No.
95-CV-72873DT, resolved August 7, 1996 (E.D. Mich.)
R, T EEOC v. Hirschfield Sons Co. d/b/a Hirschfield Steel Center,
Civil Action No. 93-CV-10259-BC, resolved April 25, 1995
(E.D. Mich.)
R, T EEOC v. Indiana FineBlanking Division of MPI International,
Inc., Civil Action No. 3:93-CV-0849-RM, resolved November
9, 1994 (N.D. Ind.)
A, T EEOC v. J.R. Tobacco of North Carolina, Inc., Civil Action
No. 5:96-CV-183-H(1), filed March 1, 1996 (W.D.N.C.)
A, T EEOC v. John Deere Commercial Products, Inc., Civil Action
No. 196-193, filed November 19, 1996 (S.D. Ga.)
R, T EEOC v. Kinney Shoe Corp., Civil Action No. 94-0069-H,
resolved February 14, 1996 (W.D. Va.)
R, Ap EEOC v. Kinney Shoe Corp., Nos. 96-1555 & 1556,
resolved January 21, 1997 (4th Cir.)
R, T John Doe & EEOC v. Kohn Nast & Graf, et al., Civil Action
No. 93-CV-4510, resolved October 31, 1994 (E.D. Pa.)
R, T EEOC v. Lake Region Mfg., Civil Action No. 3-95-509,
resolved June 28, 1996 (D. Minn.)
R, T EEOC v. Litco Petroleum, Inc., Civil Action No.
1:94-CV-280-D-D, resolved August 8, 1995 (N.D. Miss.)
R, T EEOC v. Lowe's Home Centers, Inc., Civil Action No.
2-95-CV-242, resolved May 17, 1996 (E.D. Tenn.)
R, T EEOC v. M. A. Hanna Resin Distribution Co., Civil Action No.
396CV0443-X, resolved December 20, 1996 (N.D. Tex.)
A, T EEOC v. Man's World, Inc., Civil Action No. 5:96-CV-414-1,
filed November 1, 1996 (M.D. Ga.)
R, T EEOC v. Monsanto Co. & Chevron Chemical Corp., Civil Action
No. 4:94-CV-1152, resolved June 10, 1996 (E.D. Mo.)
A, T EEOC v. MTS Corp. d/b/a SUPERCUTS, and TMS, Inc., d/b/a
SUPERCUTS, Civil Action No. CIV-94-1473 LH, filed December
28, 1994 (D.N.M.)
R, T EEOC v. Necessary & Son Construction Co. d/b/a Necessary &
Son Construction Co., Civil Action No. 94-5146, resolved
March 7, 1995 (W.D. Ark.)
R, T EEOC v. North Jackson Hotel Properties, Inc., d/b/a Ramada
Renaissance, Civil Action No. 3:95-CV-474-BrN, resolved June
19, 1996 (S.D. Miss.)
A, T EEOC v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., Civil Action No. C 96
1760, filed November 8, 1996 (W.D. Wash.)
A, T EEOC v. Paragon Properties Co., Civil Action No. 9660080,
filed April 4, 1996 (E.D. Mich.)
A, T EEOC v. Perfection Steel Treating, Inc., Civil Action No.
97-70306, filed January 24, 1997 (E.D. Mich.)
R, T EEOC v. Pinnacle Holdings, Inc., d/b/a Villa Ocotillo, Civil
Action No. CIV-95-0708-PHX RGS, resolved October 24, 1995
(D. Ariz.)
R, T EEOC v. P.M.K. Corp. d/b/a Cost Cutters of Austin, Civil
Action No. A-94-CA-584-JN, resolved December 19, 1994 (W.D.
Tex.)
A, T EEOC v. Positive Resources, Inc., Civil Action No. 4:96 CV
01855LOD, filed September 16, 1996 (E.D. Mo.)
R, T EEOC & Doris Scott v. Potlatch Corp., Civil Action No.
PB-C-93-647, resolved September 6, 1994 (E.D. Ark.)
R, T EEOC v. Preferred Hose and Coupling, A Division of Preferred
Technical Group, Inc., Civil Action No. 95-0120-C H/H,
resolved April 23, 1996 (S.D. Ind.)
R, T EEOC v. Prevo's Family Markets, Inc., Civil Action No.
1:95-CV-446, resolved October 29, 1996 (W.D. Mich.)
R, T EEOC v. Puff's of Petosky, Civil Action No. 1:95-CV-314,
resolved November 16, 1995 (W.D. Mich.)
A, T EEOC & Michael J. Boyle v. R. J. Gallagher Co., Civil Action
No. H-94-2247, filed November 4, 1994 (S.D. Tex.)
A, T EEOC v. R. J. Valente Gravel, Inc., Civil Action No.
97-CV-0163, filed February 6, 1997 (N.D.N.Y.)
R, T EEOC v. Regis Corp., Civil Action No. 6-95-CV-011-C,
resolved August 18, 1995 (N.D. Tex.)
R, T EEOC v. Resort Beverage Co., Civil Action No. 95-1568,
resolved February 14, 1996 (D. Pa.)
R, T EEOC v. St. Joseph's Medical Center, Inc., Civil Action No.
3:95-CV-0548-RM, resolved April 22, 1996 (D. Ind.)
R, T EEOC v. Sanden International (USA), Inc. and Manpower
International, Inc., Civil Action No. 4: 95-CV-37, resolved
April 18, 1995 (E.D. Tex.)
A, T EEOC v. Santa Fe Int'l. Corp., Civil Action No. 3-97CV0532-R,
filed March 11, 1997 (N.D. Tex.)
A, T EEOC v. Shoney's of Biltmore, Inc., et al., Civil Action No.
1:96CV293C, filed November 22, 1996 (W.D.N.C.)
A, T EEOC v. Sisters of Providence Hospital, Anchorage, Civil
Action No. A96-358 CIV, filed October 2, 1996 (D. Ala.)
R, T EEOC v. Smith Barney, Inc., Civil Action No. 95-874-A,
resolved September 30, 1996 (W.D. Okla.)
R, T EEOC v. The Star Ledger, Civil Action No. 95-4405 (JCL),
resolved April 24, 1996 (D.N.J.)
A, T EEOC v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., Civil Action No.
3:96-CV 3040, filed November 7, 1996 (N.D. Tex.)
A, T EEOC v. Superior Distributors, Civil Action No. 96-6103
(JWB), filed December 30, 1996 (D.N.J.)
R, T EEOC v. Tootsie Roll Industries, Inc., Civil Action No.
95-C-0989, resolved March 29, 1996 (N.D. Ill.)
R, T EEOC v. Transkrit Corp., Civil Action No. 95-2137, resolved
December 20, 1995 (W.D. Ark.)
R, T EEOC v. Union Carbide, Civil Action No. 94-0103, resolved
April 12, 1996 (E.D. La.)
R, T EEOC v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., Civil Action No.
LR-C-95-368, resolved May 20, 1996 (W.D. Ark.)
A, T EEOC v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., Civil Action No.
CIV 96-0282-E-BLW, filed July 3, 1996 (D. Idaho)
A, T EEOC v. United Airlines, Inc., Civil Action No. CIV-95-0478
LH, filed May 2, 1995 (D.N.M.)
A, T EEOC v. Valley Children's Hospital, Civil Action No. F-97-5183,
filed March 4, 1997 (E.D. Cal.)
A, T EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc., Civil Action No. 3-96-2739-10BC,
filed September 9, 1996 (D.S.C.)
A, T EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Civil Action No. 95-1200MV,
filed October 11, 1995 (D.N.M.)
A, T EEOC v. Washington Hospital Center, Civil Action No.
1:96CV02271, filed September 30, 1996 (D.D.C.)
R, T EEOC v. Wedgewood Nursing Pavilion, Ltd., Civil Action No.
95-C-0666, resolved September 27, 1995 (N.D. Ill.)
R, T EEOC v. Wes-Tex Drilling Co., Civil Action No. SA-95-CA-553,
resolved December 15, 1995 (W.D. Tex.)
R, T EEOC v. Wible Lumber, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:93-CV-0288,
resolved March 28, 1994 (N.D. Ind.)
R, C Feliberty v. Kemper Corp., No. 95-1724, resolved October 16,
1996 (7th Cir.)
R, C Ferguson v. Western Carolina Regional Sewer Authority, No.
96-1277, resolved December 30, 1996 (4th Cir.)
A, C Griffith v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 96-6361, amicus brief
filed December 30, 1996 (6th Cir.)
R, C Lowe v. Angelo's Italian Foods, No. 95-3064, resolved July
2, 1996 (10th Cir.)
A, C Matthews v. Commonwealth Edison, Inc., No. 96-3665, amicus
brief filed January 21, 1997 (7th Cir.)
A, C McKay v. Toyota Motor Manufacturing, U.S.A., Inc., No. 95-5617,
amicus brief filed July 12, 1995 (6th Cir.)
R, C McNemar v. The Disney Stores, Inc., No. 95-1590, resolved
July 31, 1996, rehearing en banc denied September 16, 1996
(3rd Cir.); cert. denied February 18, 1997
R, C Miller v. National Casualty Co., No. 95-1001, resolved July
31, 1995 (8th Cir.)
A, C Murphy v. UPS, No. 96-3380, amicus brief filed February 27,
1997 (10th Cir.)
A, C Pangalos v. Prudential Insurance Co., No. 96-2022, amicus
brief filed February 13, 1997 (3rd Cir.)
A, C Rascon v. US West Communications, Inc., No. 96-2194, amicus
brief filed March 17, 1997 (10th Cir.)
A, C Runnebaum v. NationsBank, No. 94-2200, brief as amicus
curiae in Support of Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc filed
February 21, 1997 (4th Cir.)
A, C Swanks v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority,
No. 96-7078, amicus brief filed October 18, 1996 (D.C.
Cir.)
A, C Talavera v. School Board of Palm Beach County, et al., No.
96-4756, amicus brief filed October 18, 1996 (11th Cir.)
23. Terms and Conditions:
A, T EEOC v. Add-Staff, Inc. and General Motors Corp., Civil
Action No. 96-70840, filed February 23, 1996 (E.D. Mich.)
A, T EEOC v. Anesthesia Associates of Richmond, Inc., Civil
Action No. 3:96-CV-1016, filed December 20, 1996 (E.D. Va.)
R, T EEOC v. Big Rivers Electric Corp. & International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1701, Civil Action
No. 94-0219-0 (C), resolved December 27, 1995 (W.D. Ky.)
R, T EEOC v. Brandywine Convalescent Center, Civil Action No. 94-695,
resolved August 31, 1995 (E.D. Del.)
R, T EEOC v. The Chrysler Corp., Civil Action Nos. 95-CV-71144-DT
and 95-CV-73035- DT, resolved June 10, 1996 (E.D. Mich.)
R, T EEOC v. The Dial Corp., Civil Action No. 4:95CV01726LOD,
resolved October 6, 1996 (E.D. Mo.)
A, T EEOC v. Emmanuel Convalescent Hospital, Civil Action No. C
97 20078, filed January 23, 1997 (N.D. Cal.)
A, T EEOC v. Exxon Corp., Civil Action No. 395-CV1311-D, filed
June 28, 1995 (N.D. Tex.)
A, T EEOC v. Federal Express Corp., Civil Action No. 95 2723 TU
A, filed September 18, 1995 (W.D. Tenn.)
A, T EEOC v. Federal Express Corp., Civil Action No. 96-P-33108-S,
filed November 27, 1996 (N.D. Ala.)
A, T EEOC v. First Union National Bank of North Carolina, Civil
Action No. 3:96-CV-528-H, filed December 12, 1996 (W.D.N.C.)
A, T EEOC v. Gates, Hudson and Associates, Inc., et al., Civil
Action No. AW-96-2614, filed August 20, 1996 (D. Md.)
A, T EEOC v. General Electric Co. d/b/a GE Appliances, and
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local No.
2249, Civil Action No. IP96-0199 C-H/G, filed February 12,
1996 (S.D. Ind.)
R, T John Doe & EEOC v. Kohn Nast & Graf, et al., Civil Action
No. 93-CV-4510, resolved October 31, 1994 (E.D. Pa.)
A, T EEOC v. Positive Resources, Inc., Civil Action No. 4:96 CV
01855LOD, filed September 16, 1996 (E.D. Mo.)
R, T EEOC v. Prevo's Family Markets, Inc., Civil Action No.
1:95-CV-446, resolved October 29, 1996 (W.D. Mich.)
R, T EEOC v. St. Joseph's Medical Center, Inc., Civil Action No.
3:95-CV-0548-RM, resolved April 22, 1996 (D. Ind.)
R, T EEOC v. St. Paul Federal Bank for Savings, Civil Action No.
95 C 5283, resolved September 28, 1995 (N.D. Ill.)
R, T EEOC v. Teledyne Economic Development Co., Civil Action No.
CV-95-245 TUC ACM, resolved December 22, 1995 (D. Ariz.)
R, T EEOC v. United Air Lines, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:96-CV-609,
resolved June 19, 1996 (E.D. Va.)
R, T EEOC v. Wayne Metal Products Co., Inc. & Independent Wayne
Metal Products Union, Civil Action No. 1:95-CV0357, resolved
October 30, 1995 (N.D. Ind.)
IMPAIRMENTS
Note: A = Active
R = Resolved
T = Trial Docket
Ap = Appealed (Appellate Docket)
C = Amicus Curiae (Appellate Docket)
1. Arm/Shoulder/Hand:
R, C Benson v. Northwest Airlines, No. 94-2824 (8th Cir. 1995)
R, T EEOC v. AMS Properties, Inc., Civil Action No. 95-WY-1585,
resolved December 27, 1995 (D. Col.) - (left elbow
congenital defect).
A, T EEOC v. Bethlehem Steel Shipyard at Sparrows Point, Civil
Action No. B-95-2676, filed September 11, 1995 (D. Md.)
R, T EEOC v. The Chrysler Corp., Civil Action Nos. 95-CV-71144-DT
and 95-CV-73035- DT, resolved June 10, 1996 (E.D. Mich.) -
(tendinitis)
A, T EEOC v. First Union National Bank of North Carolina, Civil
Action No. 3:96-CV-528-H, filed December 12, 1996 (W.D.N.C.)
- (paralysis of the right arm, hand and leg)
R, T EEOC v. The Knoll Group, Civil Action No. 1:95-CV-174,
resolved August 15, 1996 (W.D. Mich.) - (tendinitis)
R, T EEOC v. Microchip Technology, Inc., Civil Action No. 95-1387PHXROS,
resolved February 7, 1997 (D. Ariz.)
A, T EEOC v. Sisters of Providence Hospital, Anchorage, Civil
Action No. A96-358 CIV, filed October 2, 1996 (D. Ala.) -
(paralyzed left arm)
A, T EEOC v. Shoney's of Biltmore, Inc., et al., Civil Action No.
1:96CV293C, filed November 22, 1996 (W.D.N.C.) - (partial
paralysis in left hand)
R, T EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Civil Action No. 95-1199JP,
resolved February 24, 1997 (D.N.M.) - (amputated arm)
2. Asthma:
A, T EEOC v. Chemcast Corp., Civil Action No. 96-74465, filed
September 26, 1996 (E.D. Mich.) - (asthma)
R, T EEOC v. Lowe's Home Centers, Inc., Civil Action No. 2-95-CV-242,
resolved May 17, 1996 (E.D. Tenn.) - (asthma)
R, T EEOC v. The Star Ledger, Civil Action No. 95-4405 (JCL),
resolved April 24, 1996 (D.N.J.) - (asthma/emphysema)
A, C Roe v. Cheyenne Mountain Conference Resort, No. 96-1086,
amicus brief filed May 6, 1996; second amicus filed October
7, 1996, denied by court on October 22, 1996 (10th Cir.)
3. Back Impairments:
A, T EEOC v. Ameripol Synpol Corp. and Oil, Chemical and Atomic
Workers International Union and its Local Union No. 4-228,
Civil Action No. 1: 95CV349, filed June 21, 1995 (E.D. Tex.)
- (lumbar disk syndrome-back)
R, T EEOC v. Arizona Professional Towing and Recovery, Inc.,
d/b/a Shamrock Towing, Civil Action No. CIV95-2338PHXPGR,
resolved February 18, 1997 (D. Ariz.)
R, T EEOC v. Bailey Excavating, Inc., Civil Action No. 94-CV-72752-DT,
resolved April 25, 1995 (E.D. Mich.) - (back
injury)
R, T EEOC v. Ball Foods, Inc., d/b/a Kentucky Fried Chicken,
Civil Action No. J-C-95-68, resolved December 7, 1995 (E.D.
Ark.) - (earlier back injury)
R, T EEOC v. Brandywine Convalescent Center, Civil Action No. 94-695,
resolved August 31, 1995 (E.D. Del.) - (chronic back
condition)
R, T EEOC v. The Chrysler Corp., Civil Action Nos. 95-CV-71144-DT
and 95-CV-73035-DT, resolved June 10, 1996 (E.D. Mich.) -
(charging party Pham, back injury; charging party Welsh, hip
replacement)
A, T EEOC v. The Chrysler Corp., Civil Action No. 96-74184, filed
September 6, 1996 (E.D. Mich.)
A, T EEOC v. Equitable Bag Co., Civil Action No. 1:96CV0367,
filed June 12, 1996 (E.D. Tex.)
A, T EEOC v. Federal Express Corp., Civil Action No. 96-P-33108-S,
filed November 27, 1996 (N.D. Ala.)
A, T EEOC v. The Heil Company, Civil Action No. 97-S-0235-M,
filed January 29, 1997 (N.D. Ala.) - (perceived, back
injury)
R, T EEOC v. Herzog Stone Products, Inc., Civil Action No. 94-2016,
resolved February 4, 1994 (W.D. Ark.) - (back surgery)
R, T EEOC v. Hirschfield Sons Co. d/b/a Hirschfield Steel Center,
Civil Action No. 93-CV-10259-BC, resolved April 25, 1995
(E.D. Mich.) - (back surgery)
R, T EEOC v. Hook-Up, Inc., Civil Action No. 96-CV-3136, resolved
January 3, 1997 (E.D. Pa.) - (degenerative back disease)
A, T EEOC v. Kaiser Permanente, Civil Action No.C-94-4368 CAL
ENE, filed December 20, 1994 (N.D. Cal.) - (back injury)
R, T EEOC v. Lake Region Mfg., Civil Action No. 3-95-509,
resolved June 28, 1996 (D. Minn.) - (back impairment)
R, T EEOC v. North Memorial Medical Center, Civil Action No. 3-95-250,
resolved April 26, 1996 (D. Minn.) - (back injury)
R, T EEOC v. Preferred Hose and Coupling, A Division of Preferred
Technical Group, Inc., Civil Action No. 95-0120-C H/H,
resolved April 23, 1996 (S.D. Ind.) - (back impairment)
R, T EEOC v. Schaad Detective Agency, Civil Action No. 95-4057,
resolved December 30, 1996 (D.N.J.) - (back impairment)
A, T EEOC v. Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Co., Civil Action
No. EV 96 243-C, filed November 18, 1996 (S.D. Ind.) -
(asymptomatic back condition)
A, T EEOC v. Southeast Precast Corp. d/b/a Southern Cast Stone
Co., Inc., Civil Action No. 3:94-262, filed May 9, 1994
(E.D. Tenn.) - (back injury)
R, T EEOC v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., Civil Action No. LR-C-95-368,
resolved May 20, 1996 (W.D. Ark.) - (back
impairment)
A, T EEOC v. United Airlines, Inc., Civil Action No. CIV-95-0478
LH, filed May 2, 1995 (D.N.M.) - (back impairment)
R, T EEOC v. Wible Lumber, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:93-CV-0288,
resolved March 28, 1994 (N.D. Ind.) - (20% back impairment)
A, T EEOC v. Williams Electronics Games, Inc., Civil Action No.
94-C-5384, filed September 1, 1994 (N.D. Ill.) - (back
impairment)
A, C Griffith v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 96-6361, amicus brief
filed December 30, 1996 (6th Cir.)
R, C Harris v. Marathon Oil Co., No. 96-50202, resolved February
10, 1997 (5th Cir.)
A, C Talavera v. School Board of Palm Beach County, et al., No.
96-4756, amicus brief filed October 18, 1996 (11th Cir.) -
(back impairment)
R, C Williams v. Avnet, et al., No. 96-1072, resolved November
27, 1996 (4th Cir.)
4. Blood Disorders:
R, T EEOC v. Detroit Radiator Corp., Civil Action No. 95-78401
(PD), resolved September 6, 1996 (E.D. Mich.) - (blood
disorder)
A, C Murphy v. UPS, No. 96-3380, amicus brief filed February 27,
1997 (10th Cir.) - (blood pressure)
5. Cancer:
R, T EEOC v. American Pacific Alarms, Inc., Civil Action No.
CIV95-1849PHX RGS, resolved June 28, 1996 (D. Ariz.) - (age
(65) and tongue cancer, portion of tongue removed, affecting
charging party's speech)
R, T EEOC v. Armstrong Brothers Tool Co., a subsidiary of Danaher
Corp., Civil Action No. 4-96-276, resolved September 25,
1996 (D. Minn.) - (epilepsy & past surgery for a brain
tumor)
R, T EEOC & Charles Wessel v. AIC Security Investigations, Ltd,
et al., Civil Action No.92-C-7330, resolved June 7, 1995
(N.D. Ill.) - (brain/lung)
A, T EEOC v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Missouri, Civil Action No.
4:94-MC-161 CED, filed July 7, 1994) (E.D. Mo.) - (breast,
myeloma))
R, T EEOC v. Cooper Industries, Inc., d/b/a Maryville Forge,
Civil Action No. 95-6021-CV-53-6, resolved September 5, 1995
(W.D. Mo.) - (brain tumor)
R, T EEOC v. Gabbard & Co., Inc., Civil Action No. 94-CV-72976
DT, resolved October 25, 1995 (E.D. Mich.) - (metastatic
adenocarcinoma, metastatic melanoma)
A, T EEOC v. Health Quest Management Corp. VII d/b/a Regents Park
of Sarasota, Civil Action No. 94-1824-CIV-T-2, filed
November 22, 1994 (M.D. Fla.) - (breast)
R, T EEOC v. Heraeus-Amersil, Inc., Civil Action No. 95-3106
(DRD), resolved October 21, 1996 (D.N.J.) - (age (64) and
cancer)
R, T EEOC v. Lowe's Home Centers, Inc., Civil Action No. 2-95-CV-242,
resolved May 17, 1996 (E.D. Tenn.) - (cancer)
R, T EEOC v. Monsanto Co. & Chevron Chemical Corp., Civil Action
No. 4:94-CV-1152, resolved June 10, 1996 (E.D. Mo.) -
(brain tumor)
A, T EEOC & Michael J. Boyle v. R. J. Gallagher Co., Civil Action
No. H-94-2247, filed November 4, 1994 (S.D. Tex.) - (cancer)
R, T EEOC v. Smith Barney, Inc., Civil Action No. 95-874-A,
resolved September 30, 1996 (W.D. Okla.) - (breast cancer)
R, C Ellison v. Software Spectrum, Inc., No. 95-10704, resolved
July 10, 1996 (5th Cir.)
R, C Sanders v. Arneson Products, Inc., No. 95-15349, resolved
August 6, 1996 (9th Cir.)
6. Cardiovascular/Heart:
A, C Aka v. Washington Hospital Center, No. 96-7089, amicus brief
filed November 1, 1996 (D.C. Cir.) - (bypass surgery)
R, T EEOC v. Aeroparts Manufacturing & Repair, Inc., Civil Action
No. CIV-94-11108SC, resolved February 12, 1996 (D.N.M.) -
(heart)
R, T EEOC v. Georgia Pacific Corp., Civil Action No. 94-4129,
resolved January 23, 1996 (W.D. Ark.) - (multiple pulmonary
thromboembolism)
A, T EEOC v. Jamaica Hospital Nursing Home Co., Civil Action No.
CV 97 1541, filed March 31, 1997 (E.D.N.Y.) - (possible
irregularity revealed by EKG)
R, T EEOC v. Lowe's Home Centers, Inc., Civil Action No. 2-95-CV-242,
resolved May 17, 1996 (E.D. Tenn.) - (Von Hippel
Syndrome)
A, T EEOC v. Paragon Properties Co., Civil Action No. 9660080,
filed April 4, 1996 (E.D. Mich.) - (heart condition)
R, T EEOC v. S and C Electric Co., Inc., Civil Action No. 94-C-2308,
resolved June 17, 1994 (N.D. Ill.) - (coronary bypass
surgery)
R, T EEOC v. Wedgewood Nursing Pavilion, Ltd., Civil Action No.
95-C-0666, resolved September 27, 1995 (N.D. Ill.) - (heart)
A, C Matthews v. Commonwealth Edison, Inc., No. 96-3665, amicus
brief filed January 21, 1997 (7th Cir.) - (heart attack)
7. Cumulative Trauma Disorder\Carpal Tunnel Syndrome:
R, T EEOC v. Atlas Processing Co., Civil Action No. CV-94-2048,
resolved December 14, 1995 (W.D. La.)
R, T EEOC v. Cooper Industries, Inc., d/b/a Maryville Forge,
Civil Action No. 95-6021-CV-53-6, resolved September 5, 1995
(W.D. Mo.)
R, T EEOC v. General Motors Corp., Civil Action No. 94-73888,
resolved August 7, 1995 (E.D. Mich.)
R, T EEOC v. Greyhound Lines, Civil Action No. 95-C-652, resolved
January 30, 1997 (W.D. Wis.)
R, T EEOC v. Indiana FineBlanking Division of MPI International,
Inc., Civil Action No. 3:93-CV-0849-RM, resolved November
9, 1994 (N.D. Ind.)
R, T EEOC v. Joslyn Manufacturing Co., Civil Action No. 95-C-4956,
resolved August 16, 1996 (N.D. Ill.)
A, T EEOC v. Rockwell International Corp., Inc., Civil Action
No.95C-3824, filed June 30, 1995 (N.D. Ill.)
R, T EEOC v. St. Joseph's Medical Center, Inc., Civil Action No.
3:95-CV-0548-RM, resolved April 22, 1996 (D. Ind.)
R, C Feliberty v. Kemper Corp., No. 95-1724, resolved October 16,
1996 (7th Cir.)
A, C McKay v. Toyota Motor Manufacturing, U.S.A., Inc., No. 95-5617,
amicus brief filed July 12, 1995 (6th Cir.)
8. Diabetes:
R, T EEOC v. Baker Installations, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:97-CV-256,
resolved march 10, 1997 (E.D. Va.)
R, T EEOC v. The Chrysler Corp., Civil Action No. 94-74979,
resolved March 6, 1996 (N.D. Mich.)
A, T EEOC v. Gates, Hudson and Associates, Inc., et al., Civil
Action No. AW-96-2614, filed August 20, 1996 (D. Md.) -
(blindness related to diabetes)
R, T EEOC v. Guardsmark, Inc., Civil Action No. 3:94CV660LN,
resolved October 10, 1995 (S.D. Miss.)
R, T EEOC v. M. A. Hanna Resin Distribution Co., Civil Action No.
396CV0443-X, resolved December 20, 1996 (N.D. Tex.)
A, T EEOC v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., Civil Action No. C 96
1760, filed November 8, 1996 (W.D. Wash.) - (insulin-dependent
diabetes mellitus).
A, T EEOC v. Positive Resources, Inc., Civil Action No. 4:96 CV
01855LOD, filed September 16, 1996 (E.D. Mo.) - (diabetes,
hypertension)
R, T EEOC v. Premier Pacific Seafoods, Inc., Civil Action No.
C95-1552, resolved April 29, 1996 (W.D. Wash)
R, T EEOC v. S and C Electric Co., Inc., Civil Action No. 94-C-2308,
resolved June 17, 1994 (N.D. Ill.) - (diabetes and
coronary bypass surgery)
9. Emotional/Psychiatric Impairments:
A, Ap EEOC v. Amego, Inc., No. 96-1837, EEOC brief as
appellant filed September 17, 1996 (1st Cir.) -
(depression, bulimia)
R, T EEOC v. Bentley Tool, Inc., Civil Action No. 95-70575,
resolved May 8, 1996 (E.D. Mich.) - (stress-related anxiety
and depression)
R, T EEOC v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., Civil Action No. B-96-1469,
resolved January 24, 1997 (D. Md.) - (mental impairment:
psychothyorial)
R, T EEOC v. CNA Insurance Companies, et al., Civil Action No. 95
C 5835, resolved January 19, 1996 (E.D. Ill.) - (mental
illness)
R, Ap EEOC v. CNA Insurance Companies, et al., No. 96-1304,
resolved September 27, 1996 (7th Cir.) - (mental
illness)
A, T EEOC v. Harvest Foods, Civil Action No. LR-C-95-408, filed
June 30, 1995 (E.D. Ark.) - (depression and panic attacks)
A, T EEOC v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., Civil Action No.
3:96-CV 3040, filed November 7, 1996 (N.D. Tex.) -
(depression)
R, T EEOC v. Tootsie Roll Industries, Inc., Civil Action No. 95-C-0989,
resolved March 29, 1996 (N.D. Ill.) -
(schizophrenia)
R, T EEOC v. Union Carbide, Civil Action No. 94-0103, resolved
April 12, 1996 (E.D. La.) - (bipolar disorder: manic
depression)
A, C Leonard F. v. Israel Discount Bank of New York, No. 95-6420,
remanded to the district court on June 13, 1996 (2nd Cir.) -
(mental breakdown)
R, C Miller v. National Casualty Co., No. 95-1001, resolved July
31, 1995 (8th Cir.)
R, C Parker v. Metropolitan Life, No. 95-5269, resolved October
25, 1996 (6th Cir.) - (depression)
A, C Rascon v. US West Communications, Inc., No. 96-2194, amicus
brief filed March 17, 1997 (10th Cir.) - (Post Traumatic
Stress Disorder)
10. Epilepsy/Seizures:
R, C Eckles v. Consolidated Rail Corp., et al., Civil Action No.
95-2856, resolved August 14, 1996 (7th Cir.) - (epilepsy)
R, T EEOC v. Armstrong Brothers Tool Co., a subsidiary of Danaher
Corp., Civil Action No. 4-96-276, resolved September 25,
1996 (D. Minn.) - (epilepsy & past surgery for a brain
tumor)
R, T EEOC v. Columbia Aluminum Recycling, Ltd., Civil Action No.
94-C-00301, resolved August 4, 1994 (N.D. Ill.) - (seizures)
A, T EEOC v. Complete Auto Transit, Inc., Civil Action No. 95-73427
(DPH), filed August 25, 1995 (E.D. Mich.) - (seizure
disorder)
R, T EEOC v. Georgia Pacific Corp. & Int'l Woodworkers of America
Local 5-475,
Civil Action No. 95-1035, resolved December 9, 1996 (W.D.
Ark.) - (epilepsy)
R, T EEOC v. Kinney Shoe Corp., Civil Action No. 94-0069-H,
resolved February 14, 1996 (W.D. Va.) - (epilepsy)
R, Ap EEOC v. Kinney Shoe Corp., Nos. 96-1555 & 1556,
resolved January 21, 1997 (4th Cir.) - (epilepsy)
R, T EEOC v. North Jackson Hotel Properties, Inc., d/b/a Ramada
Renaissance, Civil Action No. 3:95-CV-474-BrN, resolved June
19, 1996 (S.D. Miss.)
R, T EEOC v. Teledyne Economic Development Co., Civil Action No.
CV-95-245 TUC ACM, resolved December 22, 1995 (D. Ariz.) -
(epilepsy)
A, T EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc., Civil Action No. 3-96-2739-10BC,
filed September 9, 1996 (D.S.C.) - (seizure disorder)
R, T EEOC v. Wes-Tex Drilling Co., Civil Action No. SA-95-CA-553,
resolved December 15, 1995 (W.D. Tex.) - (epilepsy)
R, T EEOC v. The Wood Co., Civil Action No. 94-CV-4029, resolved
December 22, 1994 (E.D. Pa.) - (epilepsy)
11. Hearing Impairments:
A, C DeForrest v. Stanley Smith Security, Inc., et al., No.
A072441, amicus brief filed July 10, 1996 (Cal. Ct. App.)
(tinnitus)
R, T EEOC v. Big Rivers Electric Corp. & International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1701, Civil Action
No. 94-0219-0 (C), resolved December 27, 1995 (W.D. Ky.)
R, T EEOC v. Community Coffee Co., Inc., Civil Action No. H-94-1061,
resolved June 29, 1995 (S.D. Tex.)
A, T EEOC v. General Electric Co. d/b/a GE Appliances, and
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local No.
2249, Civil Action No. IP96-0199 C-H/G, filed February 12,
1996 (S.D. Ind.)
R, T EEOC v. FFV Aerotech Co., Civil Action No. 3-95-0622,
resolved December 2, 1996 (M.D. Tenn.)
A, T EEOC v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation a/k/a
Amtrak, Civil Action No. 1:96CV02819, filed December 20,
1996 (D.D.C.)
A, T EEOC v. Perfection Steel Treating, Inc., Civil Action No.
97-70306, filed January 24, 1997 (E.D. Mich.)
R, T EEOC v. Pinnacle Holdings, Inc., d/b/a Villa Ocotillo, Civil
Action No. CIV-95-0708-PHX RGS, resolved October 24, 1995
(D. Ariz.)
R, T EEOC v. Scrivner, Inc. - Kansas Division d/b/a Jubilee
Foods, Civil Action No. 95-1138-MLB, resolved March 22, 1995
(D. Kan.)
A, T EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Civil Action No. 95-1200MV,
filed October 11, 1995 (D.N.M.)
12. HIV/AIDS:
A, T Carparts Distribution Center, Inc., et al. v. Automotive
Wholesaler's Association of New England, Inc., et al., Civil
Action No. C-92-592-M, filed February 22, 1996 (D.N.H.)
R, C Carparts Distribution Center, Inc., et al. v. Automotive
Wholesaler's Association of New England, Inc., et al., 37
F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 1994)
R, T EEOC v. 1348 Division Corp. d/b/a The Pub, Civil Action No.
EV-94-190-C, resolved October 23, 1995 (S.D. Ind.)
A, T EEOC v. Add-Staff, Inc. and General Motors Corp., Civil
Action No. 96-70840, filed February 23, 1996 (E.D. Mich.)
R, T EEOC v. ADPS Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a ADPS Computer World,
Civil Action No. C94- 0407, resolved March 2, 1995 (W.D.
Wash.)
R, T EEOC v. Allied Services Division Welfare Fund, Southern
Pacific Lines; Allied Services Division, Civil Action No.
93-5076-WMB, resolved September 28, 1993 (C.D. Cal.)
R, T EEOC v. AlliedSignal Aerospace, Civil Action No. 92-2776
(WHW), resolved February 29, 1996 (D.N.J.)
R, T EEOC and John Doe v. Campbell University, Inc., Civil Action
No. 5:94-CV-301-60(3), resolved March 30, 1995 (E.D.N.C.)
R, T EEOC v. Chandler Nursing Center, Inc., Civil Action No.
3-95V-0042T, resolved April 2, 1996 (N.D. Tex.)
A, T EEOC v. Cheers: Funeatery, Civil Action No. 95CV5828(JHR),
filed November 15, 1995 (D.N.J.)
R, T EEOC v. Chemtech International Corp., et al., Civil Action
No. H-94-2848, resolved August 23, 1995 (S.D. Tex.)
R, T EEOC v. DEF Express, Inc., Civil Action No. CV-F-95-5889-REC
DLB, resolved August 13, 1996 (E.D. Cal.)
R, T EEOC v. Dolphin Cruise Line, Inc., Civil Action No. 95-292,
resolved October 30, 1996 (S.D. Fla.)
R, T EEOC v. The Gage Co., Civil Action No. 94-CV-72089-DT,
resolved July 11, 1994 (E.D. Mich.)
R, T EEOC v. Gulf Grinding Co., Inc., d/b/a Gulf Precision
Industries, Inc., Civil Action No. H-95-0382, resolved July
10, 1995 (S.D. Tex.)
R, T John Doe & EEOC v. Kohn Nast & Graf, et al., Civil Action
No. 93-CV-4510, resolved October 31, 1994 (E.D. Pa.)
R, T EEOC v. John Ascuaga's Nugget Casino, Civil Action No.
N-95-00016-ECR, resolved January 31, 1995 (D. Nev.)
R, T EEOC v. Laborers District Council Building & Construction
Health & Welfare Fund, Civil Action No. 94-CV-3971, resolved
January 5, 1995 (E.D. Pa.)
R, T EEOC v. Lee Data Corp., Civil Action No. CV94-3875MRP,
resolved October 5, 1995 (C.D. Cal.)
A, T EEOC v. Man's World, Inc., Civil Action No. 5:96-CV-414-1,
filed November 1, 1996 (M.D. Ga.)
R, T EEOC v. Mason Tenders Welfare Trust Fund, et al., Civil
Action No. 93-Civ-1154-JES, resolved January 22, 1996
(S.D.N.Y.)
R, T EEOC v. Metro Traffic Control, Inc. & Southern Benefits
Services, Inc., Civil Action No. 95-Civ-0278 AGS, resolved
April 11, 1997 (S.D.N.Y.)
R, T EEOC & Johnson v. Monroe Foods, Inc., et al., Civil Action
No. Y93-2925, resolved November 28, 1994 (D. Md.)
A, T EEOC v. MTS Corp. d/b/a SUPERCUTS, and TMS, Inc., d/b/a
SUPERCUTS, Civil Action No. CIV-94-1473 LH, filed December
28, 1994 (D. N.M.)
A, T EEOC v. Nelson and Associates/Third East Hills Park
Cooperative, Inc., Civil Action No. 95-0888, filed June 12,
1995 (W.D. Pa.)
R, T EEOC v. Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co., Civil
Action No. 4.96CV47, resolved November 4, 1996 (E.D. Va.)
A, T EEOC v. Pacific West Co., LTD, d/b/a Holiday Inn, Crowne
Plaza, Civil Action No. 96-3647, filed May 23, 1996 (C.D.
Cal.)
R, T EEOC v. P.M.K. Corp. d/b/a Cost Cutters of Austin, Civil
Action No. A-94-CA-584-JN, resolved December 19, 1994 (W.D.
Tex.)
R, T EEOC v. Prevo's Family Markets, Inc., Civil Action No.
1:95-CV-446, resolved October 29, 1996 (W.D. Mich.)
R, T EEOC v. Regis Corp., Civil Action No. 6-95-CV-011-C,
resolved August 18, 1995 (N.D. Tex.)
R, T EEOC v. Spark's Nugget, Inc., d/b/a John Ascuaga's Nugget
Casino, Civil Action No. N-96-0502 ECT, resolved December
20, 1996 (D. Nev.)
R, T EEOC v. Spectacor Management Group/Spectacor, Inc., Civil
Action No. 95-2688, resolved June 22, 1995 (E.D. Pa.)
R, T EEOC v. Tarrant Distributors, Inc., Civil Action No.
H-94-3001, resolved October 11, 1994 (S.D. Tex.)
R, T EEOC v. Tokheim Corp. and Local Union No. 1539, Int'l Union,
et al., Civil Action No. 1:95-CV-0048, resolved April
29, 1996 (N.D. Ind.)
R, T EEOC v. United Welfare Fund, et al., Civil Action No. 96-CIV
7829, resolved October 17, 1997 (S.D.N.Y.)
R, T Estate of Mark Kadinger, et al. & EEOC v. International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, et al., Civil Action No.
3-93-159, resolved December 21, 1993 (D. Minn.)
R, C Gonzales v. Garner Fast Foods, Inc., No. 95-8533, resolved
August 2, 1996 (11th Cir.)
R, T John Doe & EEOC v. Kohn Nast & Graf, et al., Civil Action
No. 93-CV-4510, resolved October 31, 1994 (E.D. Pa.)
R, C Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund v. Donaghey, et
al., Civil Action No. 93 Civ. 1585 JES, defendant's summary
judgment motion denied November 19, 1993 (S.D.N.Y.)
R, C McNemar v. The Disney Stores, Inc., No. 95-1590, resolved
July 31, 1996, rehearing en banc denied September 16, 1996
(3rd Cir.); cert. denied February 18, 1997
A, C Runnebaum v. NationsBank, No. 94-2200, brief as amicus
curiae in Support of Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc filed
February 21, 1997 (4th Cir.)
13. Knee/Leg :
A, T EEOC v. Amboy Bus Company, Inc., Civil Action No. 96-5451,
filed November 5, 1996 (E.D.N.Y.) - (amputated left leg)
A, T EEOC v. City Rescue Mission, Inc., Civil Action No.
95-862-civ-J.20, filed August 31, 1995 (M.D. Fla.)
R, T EEOC v. General Motors Corp., Civil Action No. 94-73888,
resolved August 7, 1995 (E.D. Mich.) - (knee injury/surgery)
R, T EEOC v. Necessary & Son Construction Co. d/b/a Necessary &
Son Construction Co., Civil Action No. 94-5146, resolved
March 7, 1995 (W.D. Ark.) - (crushed ankle and lower leg)
A, T EEOC v. R. J. Valente Gravel, Inc., Civil Action No.
97-CV-0163, filed February 6, 1997 (N.D.N.Y.) - (amputated right
leg)
R, T EEOC v. Sanden International (USA), Inc., and Manpower
International, Inc., Civil Action No. 4: 95-CV-37, resolved
April 18, 1995 (E.D. Tex.) - (left leg amputated below knee)
14. Mental Retardation
A, T EEOC v. The Hertz Corp., Civil Action No. 96 72421, filed
May 24, 1996 (E.D. Mich.)
15. Mobility
R, T EEOC v. G & M Foods, Inc., d/b/a McDonald's, Civil Action
No. 3:96 CV-318-S, resolved November 26, 1996 (W.D. Ky.) -
(cerebral palsy)
R, T EEOC v. Gencorp Automotive, Civil Action No. 3:95CV0778AS,
resolved December 6, 1996 (N.D. Ind.)
A, T EEOC v. MCI Telecommunications Corp., Civil Action No.
96-2251 PHX EHC, filed September 25, 1996 (D. Ariz.) -
(muscular dystrophy)
R, T EEOC v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial School, et. al., Civil
Action No. 94-314, resolved June 4, 1996 (D.D.C.) -
(multiple sclerosis)
A, Ap EEOC v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial School, et al.,
No. 96-5239, brief as appellant filed January 8, 1997
(D.C. Cir.) - (multiple sclerosis)
R, T EEOC v. United Airlines, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:96-CV-609,
resolved June 19, 1996 (E.D. Va.) - (multiple sclerosis)
A, T EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Civil Action No. CIV-94-1076-LH,
filed September 22, 1994 (D.N.M.) - (paraplegia)
A, T EEOC v. Westco, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. S-96-0253-JLQ,
filed May 6, 1996 (E.D. Wash.) - (congenital hip
defect)
R, C Lowe v. Angelo's Italian Foods, No. 95-3064, resolved July
2, 1996 (10th Cir.)
16. Neck/Head:
R, T EEOC v. Transkrit Corp., Civil Action No. 95-2137, resolved
December 20, 1995 (W.D. Ark.)
17. Obesity:
R, C Cook v. Rhode Island Dept. of Mental Health, Retardation,
and Hospitals, 10 F.3d 17 (1st Cir. 1993)
R, T EEOC v. Gayatri, Inc., d/b/a Instrumatics, Civil Action No.
1:94-CV-1147, resolved April 13, 1995 (N.D. Ohio)
R, T EEOC v. Texas Bus Lines, Civil Action No. H-95-3981,
resolved June 10, 1996 (S.D. Tex.)
18. Paralysis:
A, T EEOC v. First Union National Bank of North Carolina, Civil
Action No. 3:96-CV-528-H, filed December 12, 1996 (W.D.N.C.)
- (paralysis of the right arm, hand and leg)
R, T EEOC v. Furniture Fair, Inc., Civil Action No. 4:95-CV-49-H3,
resolved October 2, 1996 (E.D.N.C.) - (paralysis of
right arm and chronic pain)
A, T EEOC v. Shoney's of Biltmore, Inc., et al., Civil Action No.
1:96CV293C, filed November 22, 1996 (W.D.N.C.) - (partial
paralysis in left hand)
A, T EEOC v. Sisters of Providence Hospital, Anchorage, Civil
Action No. A96-358 CIV, filed October 2, 1996 (D. Ala.) -
(paralyzed left arm)
A, T EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Civil Action No. CIV-94-1076-LH,
filed September 22, 1994 (D.N.M.) - (paraplegia/wheel
chair user)
19. Speech:
R, T EEOC v. American Pacific Alarms, Inc., Civil Action No.
CIV95-1849PHX RGS, resolved June 28, 1996 (D. Ariz.) - (age
(65) and tongue cancer, portion of tongue removed, affecting
charging party's speech)
R, T EEOC v. Big Rivers Electric Corp. & International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1701, Civil Action
No. 94-0219-0 (C), resolved December 27, 1995 (W.D. Ky.)
A, T EEOC v. Santa Fe Int'l. Corp., Civil Action No. 3-97CV0532-R,
filed March 11, 1997 (N.D. Tex.) - (impaired respiration
and speech due to laryngectomy)
20. Spinal:
A, T EEOC v. Federal Express Corp., Civil Action No. 95 2723 TU
A, filed September 18, 1995 (W.D. Tenn.) - (spina bifida)
A, T EEOC v. J.R. Tobacco of North Carolina, Inc., Civil Action
No. 5:96-CV-183-H(1), filed March 1, 1996 (W.D.N.C.) -
(spina bifida)
R, T EEOC v. Litco Petroleum, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:94-CV-280-D-D,
resolved August 8, 1995 (N.D. Miss.) - (scoliosis)
R, T EEOC v. Mercy Health Promotion, Inc., d/b/a Mercy Care
Center, Civil Action No. 95-6218-TH, resolved June 28, 1996
(D. Or.) - (scoliosis)
R, T EEOC v. Puff's of Petosky, Civil Action No. 1:95-CV-314,
resolved November 16, 1995 (W.D. Mich.) - (spinal injury)
R, T EEOC v. Sharp Manufacturing Co. of America, Civil Action No.
95-2405, resolved May 21, 1996 (W. D. Tenn.) - (spina
bifida)
A, C Swanks v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority,
No. 96-7078, amicus brief filed October 18, 1996 (D.C.
Cir.) - (spina bifida)
21. Substance Abuse:
A, C Burch v. The Coca-Cola Co., No. 96-10990, amicus brief filed
July 10, 1996 (5th Cir.)
R, T EEOC v. American Golf Corp. d/b/a Continental Golf Course,
Civil Action No. 95-2067PHX SMM, resolved November 7, 1996
(D. Ariz.)
A, T EEOC v. Consolidated Crane Services, Inc. and Consolidated
Crane Co., Inc., Civil Action No. H-95-3285, filed June 20,
1995 (S.D. Tex.)
A, T EEOC v. Exxon Corp., Civil Action No. 395-CV1311-D, filed
June 28, 1995 (N.D. Tex.)
22. Visual Impairments:
A, T EEOC v. Bethlehem Steel Shipyard at Sparrows Point, Civil
Action No. B-95-2676, filed September 11, 1995 (D. Md.)
R, T EEOC v. Community Coffee Co., Inc., Civil Action No. H-94-1061,
resolved June 29, 1995 (S.D. Tex.)
A, T EEOC v. Gates, Hudson and Associates, Inc., et al., Civil
Action No. AW-96-2614, filed August 20, 1996 (D. Md.) -
(blindness related to diabetes)
R, C Fink v. New York City Department of Personnel, No. 94-7699,
resolved May 19, 1995 (2nd Cir.)
A, T EEOC v. Union Pacific Railroad, Civil Action No. CIV
96-0282-E-BLW, filed July 3, 1996 (D. Idaho) - (monocular
vision)
A, T EEOC v. United Parcel Service, Civil Action No. C-97 00961,
filed March 20, 1997 (N.D. Cal.) - (monocular vision)
23. Other:
R, C Derbis v. United States Shoe Corp., No. 93-2312, resolved
September 29, 1995 (4th Cir.) (unpublished)
A, Ap EEOC v. Amego, Inc., No. 96-1837, EEOC brief as
appellant filed September 17, 1996 (1st Cir.) -
(bulimia)
A, T EEOC v. Anesthesia Associates of Richmond, Inc., Civil
Action No. 3:96-CV-1016, filed December 20, 1996 (E.D. Va.)
- (perceived; misdiagnosis of ADD)
R, T EEOC v. Arrow Concrete Co., Civil Action No. 6:94-0940,
resolved May 29, 1995 (S.D. W. Va.) - (lymphoma)
R, T EEOC v. Bloomingdale's, Inc., Civil Action No. 4-95-507,
resolved January 15, 1997 (D. Minn.) - (systemic lupus)
R, T EEOC v. The Chrysler Corp., Civil Action Nos. 95-CV-71144-DT
and 95-CV-73035-DT, resolved June 10, 1996 (E.D. Mich.) -
(charging party Welsh, hip replacement)
R, T EEOC v. Community Coffee Co., Inc., Civil Action No.
H-94-1061, resolved June 29, 1995 (S.D. Tex.) - (disfigurement)
R, T EEOC v. The Dial Corp., Civil Action No. 4:95CV01726LOD,
resolved October 6, 1996 (E.D. Mo.) - (disability kept
confidential)
R, T EEOC v. Heraeus-Amersil, Inc., Civil Action No. 95-3106
(DRD), resolved October 21, 1996 (D.N.J.) - (age (64) and
cancer)
R, T EEOC v. Hillcrest Living Center, Civil Action No. 95-CV-72873DT,
resolved August 7, 1996 (E.D. Mich.) - (contact
dermatitis)
A, T EEOC v. John Deere Commercial Products, Inc., Civil Action
No. 196-193, filed November 19, 1996 (S.D. Ga.)
R, T EEOC v. Lowe's Home Centers, Inc., Civil Action No. 2-95-CV-242,
resolved May 17, 1996 (E.D. Tenn.) - (Von Hippel
Syndrome)
R, T EEOC v. M. A. Hanna Resin Distribution Co., Civil Action No.
396CV0443-X, resolved December 20, 1996 (N.D. Tex.) -
(cystic fibrosis)
A, T EEOC v. Mercy Hospital and Medical Center, Civil Action No.
960-6350, filed September 30, 1996 (N.D. Ill.) - (ataxia)
A, T EEOC v. Positive Resources, Inc., Civil Action No. 4:96 CV
01855LOD, filed September 16, 1996 (E.D. Mo.) - (diabetes,
hypertension)
R, T EEOC v. Potlatch Corp., et al., Civil Action No.
CIV95-0301-N-EJL, resolved May 21, 1996 (D. Idaho) - (history of
migraine headaches)
R, T EEOC & Doris Scott v. Potlatch Corp., Civil Action No.
PB-C-93-647, resolved September 6, 1994 (E.D. Ark.) - (fainting)
R, T EEOC v. Reiter Automotive Globe, Inc., Civil Action No.
2:96CV 547RL, resolved February 18, 1997 (N.D. Ind.) -
(perceived)
R, T EEOC v. Resort Beverage Co., Civil Action No. 95-1568,
resolved February 14, 1996 (D. Pa.) - (arthritis and age
(56))
R, T EEOC v. St. Paul Federal Bank for Savings, Civil Action No.
95 C 5283, resolved September 28, 1995 (N.D. Ill.) - (class
case involving a broad range of disabilities)
R, T Harry Hocutt, EEOC, et al. v. Shelby Steel Fabricators,
Inc., Civil Action No. CV-93-B-2679-S, resolved June 25,
1996 (N.D. Ala.) - (class case involving a broad range of
disabilities)
R, T EEOC v. Southern Starr Foods, Inc., Civil Action No.
CIV-95-872-L, resolved July 3, 1996 (W.D. Okla.) - (class case
involving a broad range of disabilities)
A, T EEOC v. Superior Distributors, Civil Action No. 96-6103
(JWB), filed December 30, 1996 (D.N.J.) - (chronic renal
failure)
A, T EEOC v. Washington Hospital Center, Civil Action No.
1:96CV02271, filed September 30, 1996 (D.D.C.) - (disorder
affecting the lymphatic, cardiovascular and digestive
systems)
R, C Ferguson v. Western Carolina Regional Sewer Authority, No.
96-1277, resolved December 30, 1996 (4th Cir.) -
(hypothyroidism)
A, C Pangalos v. Prudential Insurance Co., No. 96-2022, amicus
brief filed February 13, 1997 (3rd Cir.) - (ulcerative
colitis)