By: Loyd Willaford and Mathias Deeg
In Cook v. City of Philadelphia, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that Philadelphia’s required psychological exam for police officer applicants was valid and non-discriminatory, and that a failed exam with no further evidence could not be used as the basis for an employment discrimination claim under the Rehabilitation Act or the Americans with Disabilities Act.
By: Loyd Willaford and Sarah Burke
In Williams v. Office of Chief Judge of Cook Cnty., a former African American juvenile probation officer in Illinois, sued her department for racial discrimination and workers compensation retaliation after she was terminated while on medical leave. The department argued that the decision was based on its belief that the officer had abandoned her job. The Seventh Circuit upheld the lower court’s decision, and granted the department summary judgment on both claims.
By: Loyd Willaford and Sarah Burke
In Valdes v. City of Doral, a former police officer alleged he had been unlawfully terminated after his job restrictions prohibited him from patrolling the streets. The city argued that it was necessary for an officer to be able to patrol the streets and therefore the officer was no longer qualified for his job. The Eleventh Circuit upheld the lower court’s ruling and dismissed the officer’s claims.
By: Loyd Willaford and Sarah Burke
In United States v. Woody, a former deputy sheriff was unable to perform her job after being diagnosed with a heart condition and asked for a transfer to a different position. A position opened but the deputy sheriff was not the most qualified applicant and did not receive the job. The deputy sheriff sued and alleged that she had been discriminated against because of her disability. A United States District Court in Virginia disagreed and dismissed the sheriff’s lawsuit.
By: Loyd Willaford & Sarah Burke
In Gardner v. Univ. of Conn. Health Ctr., a correctional facility social worker in Connecticut was terminated after she suffered a seizure while on duty and alone with an inmate. The social worker argued that the termination was discriminatory and that the risk of day time seizures was low with medication. A United States District Court in Connecticut disagreed and held that the potential harm from another seizure was too great and therefore her termination was lawful.
By: Loyd Willaford and Sarah Burke
In Wilkie v. Luzerne Cnty., a former Pennsylvania 911 dispatcher was terminated after he failed to follow procedure and a caller died. The dispatcher had suffered from anxiety and alleged he was terminated due to his disability, and not for his failure to follow procedure. A United States District Court in Pennsylvania agreed, and held the dispatcher could pursue his claims against the County.
By: Loyd Willaford and Sarah Burke
In Watt v. Brown County, a former 911 operator in Wisconsin was terminated following an injury to her rotator cuff. The operator sued, alleging she had been terminated in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The County stated her termination was due to her exhaustion of short term disability and that the operator could no longer perform the essential duties of her job. The district court held that the operator could move forward with her claims against the County.
By: Loyd Willaford & Brittany Torrence
In Moore v. Mancuso, the U. S. District Court of Louisiana dismissed a Calcasieu Parish Sheriff’s Office (CPSO) deputy’s claim that the CPSO did not accommodate his disability.
By: Loyd Willaford and Sarah Burke
In Kirincich v. Ill. State Police, a former Illinois state trooper argued she was wrongfully terminated after she suffered a diabetic episode on duty and crashed her patrol car. A federal district court in Illinois disagreed, finding that the trooper could no longer perform the essential functions of her job and the department had fulfilled its duty to accommodate her disability.
By: Loyd Willaford and Sarah Burke
In Taylor v. City of Shreveport, a group of Shreveport, Louisiana police officers sued their Shreveport Police Department (“SPD”) after they were required to submit detailed doctor’s notes after two days of sick leave. The SPD countered that the policy was necessary to determine fitness for duty. The District Court ruled that a jury could find that the policy was overly-broad and the SPD did not have a valid business reason to require it.
