Articles

LEGAL TRENDS, May 2000 

In this issue of Legal Trends, we focus in on a recent decision from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals concerning the Americans With Disabilities Act, and an update from our last newsletter regarding the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Also featured is the settlement of the cancer lawsuits brought against BP Amoco.

Disability Law

Phobic driver not covered under law.

Determining who is "disabled" under the Americans With Disabilities Act is an issue which the federal courts continue to grapple with, even after the United States Supreme Court handed down its landmark Sutton opinion, which held that those individuals who use corrective devices or medications may not be disabled.

Recently, however, the federal appellate court embracing the states of Illinois, Wisconsin and Indiana, had an opportunity to confront the disability issue in a very unusual case. Staceen Sinkler, a resident of Kenosha, Wisconsin, suffered from a phobia involving driving her car. Her condition made her unable to drive anywhere unfamiliar to her. Her physician diagnosed her condition as "spontaneous panic attacks." Though Sinkler claimed that she was unable to secure employment outside of Kenosha, she was nonetheless able to hold down a variety of jobs in her hometown. Her uneventful employment history took a downward spiral when she joined Midwest Property Management.

Sinkler was hired by Midwest in July, 1997, to market one of its properties, the Illinois Beach Resort Hotel in Zion, Illinois. At the time of her hire, Sinkler was not given a job description, and she and Midwest had not discussed what her job duties would be. When she started her job, Sinkler learned that one of her responsibilities would be traveling throughout Illinois. Sinkler told her supervisor that she "had a problem driving," and that she might need help to "work that out." Her supervisor told her that they would "work together for a while," so that Sinkler could get accustomed to her job duties.

Once her employment started, the hotel's general manager requested that she travel to Chicago for a business trip. Sinkler told the manager that she could not drive, and her request for alternative transportation was approved. In November, 1997, Sinkler met with a member of management of Midwest for a brainstorming session. At the meeting, the manager requested that Sinkler travel to Springfield for a meeting. Sinkler told the manager that she was "really handicapped with that."

Shortly thereafter, Sinkler participated in a conference call with several members of management. During the call, Sinkler referred to the conference call as a "waste of time." Midwest subsequently terminated her employment, for a number of reasons, among which was that she failed to disclose her handicap. Sinkler then filed a lawsuit under the ADA, alleging that she was disabled in a major life activity.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals rejected her argument, and stated that Sinkler was not substantially limited in her ability to work. The court noted that notwithstanding Sinkler's phobia, a broad range of jobs remained available to her. The court's opinion is one of a recent number of decisions under the ADA finding that an individual will not be considered disabled for a particular job, or working for a particular person.

States not subject to federal employment laws

In an update from our December, 1999 issue of Legal Trends, we discussed a case pending before the United States Supreme Court. At issue was whether state employees could sue the State of Florida for age discrimination under federal law. Earlier this year, the high court answered that question with a resounding no.

The Supreme Court observed that Congress had the authority to enact broad remedial legislations such as the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The court also found that when enacting this federal law, Congress had no reason to believe that state and local governments were unconstitutionally discriminating on the basis of age. Further, since employees could resort to their state laws to sue for age discrimination, any federal law affecting their immunity was invalid.

Justice Department statistics show explosion in civil rights suits.

Recent statistics released by the Justice Department show that job discrimination suits in the 1990's have tripled. The statistics demonstrated that 6,936 job bias lawsuits were filed in 1990, compared to 21,540 in 1998. The total number of all civil rights lawsuits doubled in the same time frame. An increasing percentage of these claims comprise the cases filed in federal court - in 1990, 8.6% of the federal docket were civil rights claims; in 1998, the figure increased to 16.5%. The number of government initiated lawsuits fell from 4% in 1990 to 1.6% in 1998.

Tort Law

BP Amoco settles cancer lawsuits.

Building 503 of BP Amoco's Naperville facility posed a great mystery to the oil giant. A number of male researchers who worked in the facility in the 1970's and 1980's claimed that they were exposed to a cancer causing agent and then contracted a rare form of cancer, a glioma. Six of the workers or their families filed personal injury or wrongful death lawsuits on their behalf.

In the face of what promised to be a long court battle, the company recently settled most of the claims, subject to a confidentiality agreement, that the injured parties not reveal the amount of the settlement. Judge Judith Cohen of the Circuit Court of Cook County, however, in an unusual court order, rejected that provision of the agreement, and required that the amounts be disclosed. In subsequent court papers, it was revealed that BP Amoco settled two of the claims for over two million dollars.

The company took the initiative to ferret out the cause of the cancer by conducting an extensive research study, but was unable to come up with any definitive answers. Researchers have indicated that on-the-job exposures are believed to account for up to 10 percent of all cancers.

The company, having settled these claims, is not yet out of the woods. Other lawsuits have been filed in connection with the high incidence of cancer among the workers; researchers, however, have concluded that in 13 of those cases that they were not linked to the on-the-job exposure.

Malicious prosecution verdict thrown out.

In late April, the Arkansas Supreme Court reversed a jury verdict in favor of a former Wal-Mart employee who claimed that she was falsely accused of stealing from the cash registers. In 1994, two store managers suspected the employee of stealing. The police were called, and the employee was charged with theft. The jury sided with the plaintiff, and awarded her $750,000 in compensatory damages and $2,000,000 in punitive damages. In setting aside the jury verdict, the state high court found there was no evidence to support the employee's malicious prosecution claim.

Coin Toss Voids Jury Verdict

A jury faced with the prospect of being hung in a murder trial decided to resolve the case with a coin toss. Phillip J. Givens II, 28, was charged with murdering Monica Briggs in May, 1999. After deliberating for nine hours over two days, the jury decided to toss a coin because according to the jury foreman, they "thought it was legal." After being brought to the judge's attention, the court declared a mistrial. A new trial is scheduled for September.

Office News

Robert Sidkey, a 1996 graduate of Valparaiso University, and a recent graduate of IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, has joined the firm as an associate. Robert will be focusing his practice on personal injury cases. Betsey Madden, who joined the firm in November, 1999, continues to expand her employment law practice.

The Law Offices of Eugene K. Hollander
LEGAL TRENDS, May, 2000

About the author:

Eugene Hollander is a trial attorney with over ten years experience. Mr. Hollander has tried numerous cases in the state and federal courts, and currently heads his own law office in Chicago. The Law Offices of Eugene K. Hollander is a full service law firm, concentrating its practice in the prosecution and defense of employment discrimination claims, personal injury and medical malpractice suits, and also engages in various types of commercial litigation. For more information, contact us directly at:

The Law Offices of Eugene K. Hollander
33 N. Dearborn, Suite 2300
Chicago, IL 60602
(312)-425-9100
E-mail: EHollander@ekhlaw.com

Copyright © 2003 The Law Offices of Eugene K. Hollander. This publication may be considered advertising material under the Illinois Code of Professional Responsibility and is not intended to create any attorney-client relationship. The reader should not rely upon any statement or opinion as legal advice, but rather, should consider it as generally informative.