18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

58 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition discriminatory reason for failing to hire Landry for the stocker position, i.e ., because Landry had not applied for that position. However, the Court reasoned that Defendant failed to establish any reason for failing to hire Landry for any of the 36 positions for which she was considered, and ultimately not hired for at Wal-Mart. Further, the Court determined that Defendant was not consistent with its reasons for failing to hire Landry, and when an employer offers inconsistent explanations for its employment decision, the jury may infer that the employer’s reasons are pretextual. Id . at *29. Accordingly, the Court concluded that genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether Defendant’s stated reasons for failing to hire Landry were pretextual. Id . at *30. For these reasons, the Court denied Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. (vi) Sixth Circuit EEOC v. Blue Sky Vision, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 228020 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 1, 2021) . The EEOC filed an action on behalf of the charging party, Randall Jansma, an optometrist, alleging that Defendant discriminated against Jansma on the basis of his disability, a homonymous hemianopsia or blind spot, in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Following discovery, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, and the Court denied the motion. The Court concluded that genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment. Due to Jansma’s homonymous hemianopsia, Defendant had concerns as to whether he could perform the essential duties of his job, including being able to thoroughly exam patients’ eyes, and see the entire surface and internal structures of the eyes without missing areas of concern. Defendant had offered Jansma two alternatives, including: (i) resign; or (ii) continue employment on leave and undergo a medical evaluation to determine whether he could safely perform his job duties. Id . at *5. Jansma agreed to undergo a medical evaluation. Thereafter, Jansma received from Defendant a questionnaire for the doctor to answer and an authorization for the release of medical information. The questionnaire directed the evaluator to answer questions such as "Does Dr. Jansma have a physical or mental impairment? If so, please describe such impairment(s) in detail;” and to authorize a designated entity "to release or disclose health information to Defendant. Id . at *6. Jansma objected to both, and did not provide results of an exam or medical records to Defendant; as a result, he was ultimately terminated from his employment. The EEOC alleged that the examination and request for all health information was not sufficiently narrow in scope, and thus was discriminatory under the ADA. The Court agreed. It found that the EEOC established a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the disability inquiry and the medical release were properly limited in scope. The Court opined that viewing the record in the light most favorable to the EEOC, the exam and questionnaire (the disability inquiry) did not limit the information sought by Defendant to its concerns about Jansma’s homonymous hemianopsia. Id . at *21. The Court explained that the questionnaire asked broad questions regarding whether or not Jansma had an impairment, which left open the possibility that Jansma had more than one impairment, even though Defendant had concerns about only one disability. Id . at *21-22. The Court found that Defendant’s inquiry was not job-related and consistent with business necessity. The Court also held that the medical record release was overly broad, as the doctor would have obtained any health information from Jansma and any of Jansma’s medical records, and would be authorized to release that information to Defendant. The Court determined that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether Defendant had a legitimate, non- discriminatory reason for terminating Jansma. The Court reasoned that Defendant terminated Jansma at least in part because he would not submit to its demands, and if the termination was not proper, Jansma suffered an adverse employment action on the basis of his disability. Id . at *24. For these reasons, the Court denied Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. EEOC v. Konos Inc., Case No. 20-CV-973 (W.D. Mich. June 3, 2021). The EEOC filed an enforcement action on behalf of a claimant against her employer, alleging it subjected to her to a hostile work environment and retaliation after she was sent home for complaining about a supervisor’s sexual harassment. Defendant brought a motion to dismiss both claims, which the Court denied. It found that when taking all factual allegations as true, the EEOC’s complaint sufficiently plead violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The claimant started working for Defendant on or about April 12, 2017, as an egg inspector at its facility in Martin, Michigan. Id. at 1. Shortly thereafter, a supervisor allegedly began sexually harassing the claimant. The harassment included text messages soliciting an intimate relationship, which she rejected. In addition, the supervisor sexually assaulted her on three separate occasions, including forced kissing, groping, and vaginal penetration. The claimant reported the assault to Defendant and the police, and obtained a personal protection order against the supervisor. Thereafter, the supervisor was prosecuted and pled no contest to fourth degree criminal sexual