Employment Law Clinic—Significant Achievements for 2023-24

September 3, 2024

During the past academic year, the Employment Law Clinic has continued its work helping pro se plaintiffs in employment discrimination cases in federal court. This work includes representing pro se plaintiffs as their Settlement Assistance Counsel in individual discrimination cases and representing pro se plaintiffs in their appeals to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. In addition, the Employment Law Clinic has expanded its work with pro se plaintiffs by participating in the William J. Hibbler Memorial Pro Se Assistance Program. This program allows students in the Employment Law Clinic to provide pro se plaintiffs with advice about procedural issues in their cases. Some of the significant developments in a few of the Clinic’s cases are detailed below.

Settlement Assistance Cases

Clinical Professor Randall D. Schmidt and his students are appointed on a regular basis to provide representation to pro se plaintiffs at settlement conferences. Since starting this project in early 2021, Professor Schmidt has been appointed as Settlement Assistance Counsel for pro se plaintiffs in twenty employment discrimination cases. Although most of these cases were pending in the Eastern Division of the Northern District of Illinois, he has also been appointed in cases pending the Western Division of the Northern District of Illinois and in the Central District of Illinois.

These cases allow students to interview the client, research the legal and factual issues in the case, draft a settlement demand letter, represent the client at a settlement conference, and, if the case settles, draft the settlement agreement.

Professor Schmidt and his students have been very successful in resolving these cases. Of the twenty cases Professor Schmidt and his students have handled, fourteen were settled after one of more mediation sessions. Five are still pending awaiting the initial or follow-up settlement conference. One case did not settle and the plaintiff recently lost her case when the court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

Below are a few examples of cases that Professor Schmidt and his students handled during the 2023-24 academic year. Each of these cases resulted in a settlement after one or more mediation sessions. Pursuant to the settlement agreements in these lawsuits the details of the settlements are confidential.

Jackson v. Robert W. Baird & Co., No. 1:22-cv-04852 (Settled 09/11/23)

In October 2016, Devonia Jackson began working for Robert W. Baird & Co. (“Baird”) as an Administrative Assistant in its Milwaukee, Wisconsin office. Baird is a global investment-banking firm that provides private investment services to mid-market businesses.

While employed by Baird, Ms. Shaw received several promotions and pay increases in recognition of her excellent performance. In 2018, Ms. Jackson relocated to Baird’s Virginia office. In two months she raised concerns over the abusive behavior of a lead banker and transferred to the Chicago office.

In 2020, Ms. Jackson began reporting to a new supervisor. From the beginning of their professional relationship, the new supervisor treated Ms. Jackson differently from other employees. The supervisor was often dismissive of Ms. Jackson’s concerns. Without asking Ms. Jackson, she reassigned Ms. Jackson’s to work with junior bankers. The supervisor told Ms. Jackson that she was “scared of working” with her, despite being Ms. Jackson’s supervisor.

Suddenly and without warning, Baird discharged Ms. Jackson in August 2021. In support of its decision to discharge Ms. Jackson’s termination, Baird cited two incidents in which Ms. Jackson was allegedly insubordinate. Ms. Jackson disputed that she was insubordinate during either incident. Moreover, no one at Baird raised concerns about either incident until Ms. Jackson was discharged. Ms. Jackson’s supervisors neither warned Ms. Jackson about the incidents before her termination nor gave her a chance to explain herself, even though she had a history of being a high-performing employee.

In addition, Baird did not terminate other similarly situated, substantially younger, Administrative Assistants whose job performance and/or behavior at work was alleged to have been insubordinate. After discharging Ms. Jackson, Baird assigned Ms. Jackson’s duties to younger employees.

Finally, after Ms. Jackson left Baird, she found out that between August 2020 and August 2021 Baird terminated ten administrators, all of whom were over the age of forty. The employees who had been terminated were also highly experienced—many had over ten years of experience at Baird— and in an older age group. They, too, were replaced by younger employees.

Ms. Jackson filed a pro se complaint against Baird and alleged that its termination of her employment violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. During discovery, the parties indicated to the court that they were interested in participating a settlement conference. Accordingly, the court appointed Professor Schmidt to serve as Mr. Lara’s Settlement Assistance Counsel. The parties were able to agree to a settlement during the initial settlement conference and the case was dismissed.

Johnson v. P.F.A. Systems, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-0719) (N.D. Ill.) (Settled 03/25/24)

P.F.A. Systems, Inc., is a regional trucking company that transports liquid hazardous materials. P.F.A. hired Seneca Johnson as a truck driver in February 2022. At the time he was hired, Mr. Johnson told his supervisor that as an accommodation to his disability (a lower back injury), he needed to be assigned to drive trucks with automatic transmissions. Mr. Johnson was told that it would not be a problem to provide this accommodation to him.

Despite P.F.A.’s assurance that it would provide Mr. Johnson with an automatic transmission truck, P.F.A. forced Mr. Johnson to drive a 13-speed manual transmission truck, which caused severe pain, numbness in his leg and exacerbated Mr. Johnson’s back injury. Mr. Johnson complained to P.F.A. about its failure to assign him to a truck with an automatic transmission. In response, P.F.A. informed Mr. Johnson that the automatic truck had been given to another driver because that driver’s truck had to be fixed.

A few days later, Mr. Johnson again requested that P.F.A. accommodate his disability by assigning him to a truck with an automatic transmission. His immediate supervisor told him that he needed to “deal with it or find another job.” The supervisor also said, “P.F.A. and I don’t care about people with disabilities. We’re not going to make special accommodations for people with disabilities.” Mr. Johnson told the supervisor that he and P.F.A. were discriminating against people with disabilities. The supervisor retorted that P.F.A. does not hire people with disabilities. In response to Mr. Johnson’s statement that it is against the law for a company to turn down a qualified person because of their disabilities, the supervisor said, “Then you are at the wrong company. We don’t play by those rules.”

A week later. P.F.A. discharged Mr. Johnson claiming it did not have enough work for him. At the same time, P.F.A. was running help wanted ads seeking truck drivers.

Mr. Johnson filed a lawsuit against P.F.A. alleging that it violated the Americans with Disability Act by (1) failing to provide a reasonable accommodation for his disability and (2) retaliating against him for asserting his statutory rights. After most of the discovery had been competed in the case, Professor Schmidt was appointed to represent Mr. Johnson as his Settlement Assistance Counsel. The matter was resolved a few months later.

Lara v. Health Track Sports and Wellness, LLC, No. 1:23-cv-00487 (N.D. Ill.) (Settled 03/19/24)

Lazaro Lara worked for Health Track Sports and Wellness, LLC, (“Health Track”), a health and fitness club, for sixteen years. Mr. Lara was diagnosed with ADHD, anxiety, and depression, which qualifies as an impairment under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Early in his employment, Mr. Lara informed his employers of his disability.

Beginning in April 2020, Health Track subjected Mr. Lara to a severe and pervasive hostile work environment. Mr. Lara’s supervisor and his co-workers routinely harassed Mr. Lara on the basis of his disabilities, calling him “crazy” and taunting him that he “suffer[ed] from schizophrenia.” They hounded Mr. Lara about his medical issues, telling him that his medication was not working and that he needed additional medical intervention. They would change his schedule without notice, including forcing him to work in person during the COVID pandemic while others were allowed to stay home. To ensure compliance with their orders, Health Track threatened to strip Mr. Lara of his health insurance.

Mr. Lara suffered damage to his mental health that significantly affected his quality of life because of the severity of Health Track’s hostile work environment. As Lara’s condition worsened, he took two steps to try to stop the harassment. First, he requested a few specific accommodations: that all of his work tasks be put in writing, that he receive clear instructions, that he be put on a schedule to keep track of his hours and to avoid management changing it without notice, and that he have access to a quiet place as needed. Health Track, however, failed to provide these requested accommodations.

Second, after Health Track ignored his requested accommodations, he filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in January 2021. In the charge, Mr. Lara alleged that he had requested reasonable accommodations for his disabilities and Health Track refused to provide those accommodations. Mr. Lara further alleged that his co-workers subjected him to harassment because of his disabilities.

Subsequently, in late March 2021, Mr. Lara attended a meeting with his supervisors for the express purpose of discussing Mr. Lara’s accommodations not being met and the harassment. However, during the meeting, the supervisor tried to convince Mr. Lara that he was not mentally stable and that Mr. Lara needed to find someone to “take care of his affairs.” Further, the supervisor told Mr. Lara that he would never allow Mr. Lara to work due to his mental condition—even though Mr. Lara’s doctor had cleared him to work—and that Health Track did not have any hours for him if he tried to return. The supervisor pushed Mr. Lara to resign, guaranteeing him that he could retain health insurance through COBRA or the American Rescue Plan if he chose to resign. Mr. Lara refused to resign at any point during the meeting or thereafter. At the meeting’s end, the supervisor told Mr. Lara to take a few days off, assuring him that Health Track would investigate the issues and get back to him with their conclusions.

The next time Mr. Lara heard from Health Track was two weeks later in April 2021. At that time, Health Track informed Mr. Lara that he had voluntarily resigned and that he was no longer an employee of Health Track.

Mr. Lara filed a lawsuit against Health Track alleging that its actions violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. In his complaint, Mr. Lara alleged that Health Track failed to accommodate Mr. Lara’s disabilities and subjected him to a severe and pervasive hostile work environment due to his disabilities during his employment. Mr. Lara also claimed that his discharge was in retaliation for his filing the EEOC charge and complaining about the discrimination and harassment.

Shortly after the case was filed, the court appointed Professor Schmidt to serve as Mr. Lara’s Settlement Assistance Counsel. After several settlement conferences, the parties were able to agree to a settlement and the case was dismissed.

Shaw v. Chicago School of Professional Psychology, No. 1:23-cv-00631 (N.D. Ill.) (Settled 09/11/23)

Donna Shaw worked for the Chicago School of Professional Psychology (“TCSPP”) for seven years. TCSPP is an accredited, nonprofit university that offers bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral degree programs in psychology and related behavioral science fields. TCSPP has in-person campuses in seven metropolitan areas, including Chicago and San Diego, and an online campus.

Throughout her time at TCSPP, Ms. Shaw was discriminated against due to her race, color, and age. Most significantly, Ms. Shaw’s superiors created a hostile work environment for Ms. Shaw and repeatedly denied her promotions to positions that she is qualified to fill. On each occasion, instead of promoting Ms. Shaw, TCSPP promoted younger, less qualified, non-Black individuals. When Ms. Shaw complained about her treatment and the denial of promotions, TCSPP retaliated against her.

Ms. Shaw filed a pro se complaint of discrimination against TCSPP. In her complaint, Ms. Shaw alleged that TCSPP’s failure to take steps to end and prevent the hostile work environment and its failure to promote her violated Title and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Shortly after TCSPP filed its answer, the court appointed Professor Schmidt as Ms. Shaw’s Settlement Assistance Counsel and set the case for a settlement conference. The parties were able to reach a settlement during the settlement conference and the case was dismissed.

William J. Hibbler Memorial Pro Se Assistance Program

In early 2024, the Employment Law Clinic expanded its work with pro se litigants by participating in the William J. Hibbler Memorial Pro Se Assistance Program (“Hibler Help Desk”). The Hibbler Help Desk is administered by the People’s Law Center in cooperation with the District Court and the Chicago Bar Foundation. It is “staffed” by volunteer attorneys. It serves pro se litigants in civil cases filed or to be filed in the federal court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern and Western Divisions. A Program attorney provides pro se litigants with limited legal assistance with their cases. In particular, the Hibbler Help Desk provides pro se litigants with help on procedural issues, not substantive legal advice.

The Employment Law Clinic began helping pro se litigants in February 2024. Since then, students in the Clinic have met with and assisted more than twenty-five pro se litigants. The assistance we have provided includes helping clients complete the documents needed to file a pro se employment discrimination complaint; providing guidance on submitting Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) initial disclosures, written discovery requests and responses; help in complying with the NDIL’s rules regarding motions to compel discovery; explaining the status of the pro se’s case or appeal; referring clients to resources that could assist them with the substantive legal issues in their cases; and referring pro se’s other providers of civil legal services or to social service agencies.

Appellate Cases

The Employment Law Clinic represents clients in a number of appeals in the US Court Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. In some of these appeals, the Employment Law Clinic represents the appellants in their appeals. In other reconsiderations appeals, the Clinic is contacted and asked to participate as amicus curiae. Students working on these appeals write the briefs and present oral argument to the Seventh Circuit. Both Professor Schmidt and Lecturer in Law James Whitehead supervise the students in the appeals pending in the Seventh Circuit.

Bell v. DeJoy Appeal No. 24-1478 (7th Cir.)

Mary Bell is currently working for the United States Post Office (“Postal Service”). On November 22, 2022, Ms. Bell filed her pro se Complaint alleging that the Postal Service discriminated against her with respect to overtime pay and by refusing to downgrade her position. In response, the Postal Service moved to dismiss the complaint, in part, because Ms. Bell had not received a right-to-sue letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission before filing her complaint. Thus, according to the Postal Service, Ms. Bell’s complaint was premature. Contrary to the Postal Service’s motion, Ms. Bell had in fact received a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC after filing her complaint and prior to the Postal Service’s filing of its motion to dismiss. This fact was not brought to the court’s attention, even though the Postal Service had received a copy of the right-to-sue letter, the court agreed and dismissed the complaint.

The Employment Law Clinic decided to submit an amicus brief in support of Ms. Bell because this case presents several issues of significant importance to the rights of individuals to pursue federal employment discrimination claims in court. In particular, the Employment Law Clinic argues that the district court incorrectly dismissed Ms. Bell’s claims because she had not filed an Amended Complaint raising the claims within ninety days of her receipt of a right-to-sue letter. The court, however, ignored the fact that she had raised the claims in her prematurely filed complaint before receiving the right-to-sue letter. In so doing, the district court disregarded the Seventh Circuit’s settled law that her receipt of the right-to-sue letter before the dismissal of her complaint had cured the Complaint’s premature filing.

The case is currently being briefed.

Miko Thomas v. JBS Green Bay Appeal No. 24-1404 (7th Cir.)

Mr. Thomas works for JBS Green Bay, one of the world’s largest meat producers. In his complaint, he alleged that his employer discriminated against him due to his color with respect to several terms and conditions of his employment, in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Relying on the Seventh Circuit’s standard for establishing justiciable adverse employment actions in discrimination cases, the district court dismissed Mr. Thomas’s Complaint and Amended Complaint. The court concluded that the actions he complained of were not “materially adverse” as a matter of law.

Mr. Thomas appealed and asked the Employment Law Clinic to represent him in his appeal. The Employment Law agreed to do so because of its interest in clarifying what adverse actions are actionable under Title VII, the ADA and other anti-discrimination statutes.

After the Employment Law Clinic agreed to represent Mr. Thomas, and six weeks after the district court’s final decision in Mr. Thomas’s case, the US Supreme Court, on April 17, 2024, issued its opinion in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, 601 U.S. ___, 144 S. Ct 967 (2024). As the Employment Law Clinic predicted, the Court held that, although an employee must show some harm in order to prevail in a Title VII discrimination suit, an employee does not need to show that the injury satisfies a heightened significance test or was “materially adverse.” In doing so, the Court mentions Seventh Circuit precedent as an example of courts using an incorrect standard for determining what actions constitutes adverse action for purposes of Title VII.

Thus, the primary issue in Thomas is whether the district court erred in dismissing Mr. Thomas’s case in light of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Muldrow.

The case is currently being briefed and an oral argument is expected to take place this fall.

Sapp v. Forest Preserves of Cook County, Appeal No. 22-2865 (7th Cir.)

Tyler Sapp served as a full-time Police Officer for the Forest Preserve District of Cook County, Illinois (“Forest Preserves”) from January 5, 2009, until his employment was terminated in January 2019. In 2018, Mr. Sapp went on a leave of absence under the Family and Medical Leave Act so that he could receive treatment for a for bipolar disorder. In July 2018, he was released by his personal doctor to return to work with no restrictions. The Forest Preserves, however, refused to allow him to return to work and required that he undergo an independent medical examination to determine if Mr. Sapp was fit to return to work from his medical leave. Mr. Sapp agreed to do so. The doctor who performed the IME, however, concluded that Ms. Sapp was unfit to return to work as a Forest Preserves Police Officer. Mr. Sapp then requested that the Forest Preserves engage in an interactive process with him to determine if the Forest Preserves could accommodate his condition. The Forest Preserves refused to do so and instead discharged Mr. Sapp.

Mr. Sapp brought a disability-discrimination claim against the Forest Preserves under the Americans with Disabilities Act. He alleged that he is a qualified individual with a disability and that he had been denied the same terms and conditions afforded to his co-workers who were similarly situated. In particular, Mr. Sapp alleged that the Forest Preserves was aware of his disability and failed to reasonably accommodate his disability despite accommodating the disabilities of other Forest Preserves Police Officers.

After the close of discovery, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court issued its Memorandum Opinion and Order granting summary judgment to the Forest Preserves and denying Mr. Sapp’s motion. Mr. Sapp appealed the court’s decision.

On appeal, Mr. Sapp requested that the Employment Law Clinic represent him in his appeal. The Employment law Clinic agreed to do so. The primary issue the Employment Law Clinic planned to address in the appeal was whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment to the Forest Preserves because a reasonable jury could have found that the Forest Preserves’ failure to engage in the interactive process led to a violation of the ADA due to the failure to identify a reasonable accommodation. Instead of engaging with Mr. Sapp to find a solution, the Forest Preserves thwarted discussions by terminating his employment.

Shortly after filing an appearance in the appeal, the matter was set for mediation before the Seventh Circuit’s Mediation Office. After several mediation sessions, the parties were able to reach a settlement in the case and the appeal was dismissed.

Franklin Township Community School Corporation, Appeal No. 23-2786 (7th Cir)

In 2012, Wesley Tedrow was hired by Franklin Township School Corporation (“School Corporation”) as a teacher. In November 2019, Mr. Tedrow was preliminarily offered a higher-paying position to teach sixth grade at a different school in Indiana. The School Corporation, however, refused to provide Mr. Tedrow with a reference, despite having provided such references in the past. The School Corporation’s refusal to provide the reference resulted in the other school resulting in the rescinding of its offer.

Mr. Tedrow filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), alleging that the School Corporation declined to provide him with a reference because his sex and disability.

After Mr. Tedrow filed his initial charge, the School Corporation demanded that Mr. Tedrow submit to an Independent Medical Examination to determine if he was using steroids. The IME was inconclusive. The School Corporation then transferred Mr. Tedrow to different school in the district.

Mr. Tedrow filed a second charge with the EEOC alleging that his transfer was discriminatory and in retaliation for his first charge. The EEOC issued Mr. Tedrow a notice of right to sue and Mr. Tedrow filed suit against the School Corporation alleging discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008.

After discovery was completed, the School Corporation filed a motion for summary judgment on all claims, which was granted by the district court. The court dismissed Mr. Tedrow’s discrimination claims on the basis that: (1) he failed to properly plead his allegation that the School Corporation unlawfully refused to provide him with a reference, and (2) his transfer did not constitute an adverse employment action as required by Title VII because it did not include a reduction in compensation or benefits.

The Employment Law Clinic agreed to represent Mr. Tedrow on appeal because the issue of what constitutes actionable adverse action was an issue that was then pending before the US Supreme Court in in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, 601 U.S. ___, 144 S. Ct 967 (2024), In addition, several other circuit courts of appeal hard recently issued opinions rejecting their prior precedent on what adverse actions are actionable.

Harris v. Vision Energy LLC, No. C-2300406 (Ohio Ct. App.)

The Employment Law Clinic is often requested to submit amicus briefs in cases in pending before the Illinois Supreme Court, the Illinois Court of Appeals, and appellate courts in other jurisdictions. This year, the Employment Law Clinic was asked to submit an amicus brief concerning the history of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collections Act (“IWPCA”) in Harris v. Vision. The Employment Law Clinic previously submitted a similar brief in Johnson v. Diakon Logistics, 44 F.3d 1048 (7th Cir. 2022).

In Harris, Jeff Harris, a resident of Ohio, worked for Vision Energy, an Ohio company. All of the work Mr. Harris provided to Vision took place in Illinois. In exchange for Mr. Harris’s labor, Vision promised him, among other compensation, a four percent equity interest in a yet-to-be-formed corporation. When Vision failed to pay him the value of the promised equity interest, Mr. Harris filed a complaint against Vision in Ohio to recover that sum under the IWPCA. Vision moved to dismiss Mr. Harris’ IWPCA claim based on a choice-of-law provision in the parties’ contract, which stated that the agreement was to be governed by Ohio law. The court granted Vision’s motion and dismissed the IWPCA claim.

Mr. Harris appealed the court’s dismissal of his IWPCA claim and his counsel requested that the Employment Law Clinic submit a brief explaining the history and strong public policy behind the IWPCA. The Employment Law Clinic agreed to do so and submitted an amicus brief on behalf of Mr. Harris.

In the amicus brief, the Employment Law Clinic argues that the history of the IWPCA and Illinois’s prior wage-theft statutes demonstrates the importance that the Illinois legislature has placed on protecting its workers and the centrality of preventing wage theft to Illinois’s public policy. The amicus brief also demonstrates that Illinois has a materially greater interest than Ohio in the resolution of the dispute because Mr. Harris performed all his work for Vision in Illinois. The lower court’s decision that requires Mr. Harris to bring his wage theft claim against Vision under Ohio’s wage laws, is manifestly repugnant to the fundamental policies of Illinois because Ohio’s wage protection laws would not have provided him with a viable claim or with any remedy for the work he performed solely in Illinois.

Finally, the Employment Law Clinic argued that the choice-of-law provision in the Harris-Vision Agreement did not override the territorial limitations of Ohio’s wage protection statutes, which do not apply extraterritorially to work performed exclusively outside of Ohio. Courts across the country, including Ohio courts, have long recognized that a state’s territorial limitations apply even when that state’s law is selected for application by a choice-of-law provision.

The appeal is pending in the Ohio Court of Appeals.