The District Court had held that the defendants did not owe a duty of care to the employee for her supervisor's criminal acts. However, the Seventh Circuit held that there was a triable issue as to whether it was foreseeable that the supervisor would harm the employee given his prior pattern of conduct against her. Neither the fact that the supervisor committed the intentional tort outside scope of employment nor that he had never harmed or made explicit threat the to the employee prior to the trip required a different result.
Plaintiff sued alleging that defendants were negligent in hiring an employee's supervisor, who had verbally abused employee, made sexual advances towards her at workplace, threatened her with loss of her job if she did not accompany him on personal out-of-town trip, and then killed and raped her on that trip. Anicich v. Home Depot U.S.A., No. 16-1693 (7th Cir. March 24, 2017). The District Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded.
The District Court had held that the defendants did not owe a duty of care to the employee for her supervisor's criminal acts. However, the Seventh Circuit held that there was a triable issue as to whether it was foreseeable that the supervisor would harm the employee given his prior pattern of conduct against her. Neither the fact that the supervisor committed the intentional tort outside scope of employment nor that he had never harmed or made explicit threat the to the employee prior to the trip required a different result.
0 Comments
Professor brought Title VII and IX claims, alleging that she was retaliated against after forwarding a student complaint of sexual harassment and after filing an EEOC complaint. Burton v. Bd. of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, No. 16-2982 (7th Cir. March 17, 2017). The District Court granted summary judgment for the defendant and the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The Seventh Circuit held that staff criticism and failure to support her curriculum initiative were not sufficiently material to be adverse. While the "letter of direction" and letter requesting formal reprimand were materially adverse acts, the plaintiff failed to show that either act was linked to her filing of EEOC charge. Employe sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), alleging that his employer fired him because of his sensitivity to electromagnetic voltage and in retaliation for complaining about alleged high levels of voltage in his workplace. Hirmiz v. New Harrison Hotel Corp., No. 16-3915 (April 6, 2017). The employer moved for summary judgement, which the District Court granted. The Seventh Circuit affirmed.
The Seventh Circuit held that the District Court could properly have found that defendant's disorder was not qualified disability under ADA as impairment that substantially limited any of plaintiff's major life activities. Further, the plaintiff had failed to establish that he had engaged in any protected conduct to establish a retaliation claim as he had not sought accommodation nor filed EEOC charge prior to his termination. Finally, the employee's new evidence about his medical condition submitted to Seventh Circuit was untimely. Today, April 7, 2017, Judge Neil Gorsuch was confirmed to the Supreme Court as its 113th justice. The vote was 54 senators in favor, 45 against, largely divided by party lines - only three Democrats voted with the GOP. For over a year, since February 2016, the Supreme Court has been operating with eight justices. 49-year-old Gorsuch is succeeding Justice Scalia. Gorsuch is slated to take his oath early next week. |
As a Chicago employment lawyer, the firm focus primarily on employment law. Archives
June 2017
Categories
All
|