CATS argued that it properly fired Brown due to his failure to have current CDL license, and that District Court improperly gave the jury a question as to whether having CDL license for purposes of driving bus was essential function of his job. However, the Seventh Circuit found that the resolution of whether a CDL license was an essential function of Brown's job was properly given to jury, since it was issue of fact and not of law. Moreover, the jury could properly find that a CDL license was not essential function of Brown's job where: (1) Brown was originally hired into position without CDL license and had worked in position for approximately four years without needing to drive bus; and (2) others testified that they seldom, if ever, drove a bus while working in said position, and that there were others in workplace who could drive bus on such occasions if necessary.
Employee Brown sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), alleging that his employer, the City of Anderson Transit System (CATS), fired him because of his diabetes. Brown v. Smith, et al., No. 15-1114 (7th Cir. June 28, 2016). CATS refused to allow Brown to continue in his street supervisor position, even though he no longer held a CDL license to drive truck that was required by street supervisor job description. Ultimately, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Brown. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that the record contained sufficient evidence to support jury's verdict.
CATS argued that it properly fired Brown due to his failure to have current CDL license, and that District Court improperly gave the jury a question as to whether having CDL license for purposes of driving bus was essential function of his job. However, the Seventh Circuit found that the resolution of whether a CDL license was an essential function of Brown's job was properly given to jury, since it was issue of fact and not of law. Moreover, the jury could properly find that a CDL license was not essential function of Brown's job where: (1) Brown was originally hired into position without CDL license and had worked in position for approximately four years without needing to drive bus; and (2) others testified that they seldom, if ever, drove a bus while working in said position, and that there were others in workplace who could drive bus on such occasions if necessary.
0 Comments
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
As a Chicago employment lawyer, the firm focus primarily on employment law. Archives
June 2017
Categories
All
|