Causation. One of the most substantial developments this year is the clarification of “but-for” causation. The Supreme Court explained that there could be more than one “but-for” cause. Accordingly, but-for causation does not require a showing that an impermissible motive was the sole cause of the challenged action. Burrage v. United States, No. 12-7515 (January 27, 2014). Expanding on that, the Seventh Circuit held that a “single event can have multiple but-for causes” so an employee’s “FMLA leave request and her sexual harassment complaint could both have been but-for causes of [her employer’s] allegedly retaliatory conduct.” Malin v. Hospira, Inc., No. 13-2433 (August 7, 2014).
Pregnancy discrimination. The Illinois Human Rights Act was amended to mandate accommodations for employees regardless of the size of the employer. The IHRA amendments further make it illegal for employers to discrimination against employees for using or trying to use accommodations.
FMLA. There has been substantial clarification in the area of FMLA law in Seventh Circuit this year. Of particular note are the following holdings: (1) The Seventh Circuit explained that “caring for” a family member under the FMLA encompasses family trips to Las Vegas for vacation because the employee tended to her mother’s basic medical, hygienic, and nutritional needs during said trip. Ballard v. Chicago Park District, No. 13-1445 (January 28, 2014). (2) The Seventh Circuit found that although the FMLA does not protect individuals who take time off from work to care for grandchildren, it can be protected when that care also constitutes psychological care of the individual’s daughter. Gienapp v. Harbor Crest, No. 14-1053 (June 24, 2014).
An employee suing for FMLA violations does not need to present expert evidence about the qualifying condition. Hansen v. Fincantieri Marine Corp., LLC, No. 13-3391 (August 18, 2014). (3) Estimated leave made by an employee’s doctor does not create an outer limit for the amount of leave needed by that employee. Hansen v. Fincantieri Marine Corp., LLC, No. 13-3391 (August 18, 2014).
Retaliation timing. The Seventh Circuit noted where there was three years between the complaints and retaliatory action that, “the mere passage of time is not legally conclusive proof against retaliation.” Malin v. Hospira, Inc., No. 13-2433 (August 7, 2014).
Seventh Circuit Follows Fifield. While a more nuanced and narrow holding, Judge Holderman specifically enforced Fifield and declined to follow Montel, holding that restrictive covenant agreements lacked adequate consideration when employees are employed for less than two years. Instant Technology, LLC v. DeFazio, No. 12-491 (May 2, 2014).