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 Koenig v. City of New Haven, a disabled police officer alleged he had been discriminated against after he was suspended with pay following racist and sexist remarks he allegedly made. The city argued that the suspension was not an adverse employment action and, even if it were, it was not done because of the officer’s disability. A United States District Court in Connecticut found the suspension was an adverse action, but that there was no evidence to show that the City suspended the officer because of his disability. The Court dismissed the officer’s claims.
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 and Brittany Torrence
In Wilson v. Gaston County, the U. S. District Court of North Carolina dismissed a discharged a Paramedic’s ADA discrimination and retaliation claims against Gaston County, where she could not show that her termination was discriminatory and that the County failed to respond appropriately to sexually harassing conduct she experienced from another employee.
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 Coleman-Askew v. King County, a King County female corrections officer alleged she was sexually harassed after her supervisor, Captain Hardy, followed her to the gym and made comments about how she “looked good for her age.” The corrections officer sued, alleging these comments caused her to request a transfer to a different department and resulted in a loss of workplace benefits. The department alleged these comments were not sexual in nature and therefore did not constitute sexual harassment. The United States District Court in Western Washington agreed with the officer and found that she could pursue her claims against the department. The District Court did dismiss some of the officer’s claims, specifically those against Captain Hardy’s supervisor.
