Invalid EEO claim leads to valid retaliation case

A federal Court of Appeals in Chicago ruled on a case involving the limits on an employer's duty to reasonably accommodate a mental disability. This case affirms how important it is for managers to treat employees fairly who have brought apparently invalid discrimination claims.

The case involved a woman who filed a claim of discrimination that her supervisors believed (and the court found) was invalid. Shortly afterwards, during her regular performance evaluation, she was treated with so much hostility by her supervisor that she passed out. She was then on disability for depression for 21 weeks. When she returned to work with her doctor's note clearing her for full duty, her supervisor doubled her workload, brought her into his office to finish the evaluation, and assigned her to do inordinately heavy lifting even though she informed him she was five weeks pregnant. She injured her back doing this lifting and called in sick the next day. She was then terminated for chronic absenteeism.

The court held that although her original claim of discrimination was invalid, she could proceed with a claim of retaliation because of the "suspicious timing" of the hostile evaluation immediately after filing her claim. The court said the hostility when she returned to work was part of the same pattern of retaliation.

The court also ruled on an employer's duty to accommodate unknown mental disabilities.

Case Excerpts

Golliday has failed to present anything at all regarding whether she informed Metro Water of her alleged mental disability and her need for accommodation, let alone what should have or could have been done for her. Upon her return to Metro Water, Golliday never indicated that her mental condition needed to be considered a disability. She simply returned to work to avoid being terminated. She did not request a change of shifts or modifications of facilities or suggest any other accommodation for her mental state. Her doctors' letter regarding her return, which we quoted earlier, stated that she was capable of working. It mentions nothing about her needing any special accommodation for a mental condition.

Golliday has not shown that she gave her employer enough basis for it to be held responsible for failing to inquire further. She initiated her return to work. Her doctors' letter gave no indication that she was mentally incapable of returning to her job or that she needed any accommodation. Golliday never stated that she was not equal to the task of doing what her job duties entailed.

HUNT-GOLLIDAY v. METROPOLITAN WATER RECLAMATION DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO,
___F.4th ___, 1997 WL 16284 (7th Cir., Ill, No. 96-1332, Jan. 17, 1997).

Information here is correct at the time it is posted. Case decisions cited here may be reversed. Please do not rely on this information without consulting an attorney first.