Key Decision in Disability Case in Minnesota
An order denying in part the motion of Hibbing Taconite Company for summary judgment in a disability discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), was issued by Judge Richard Kyle of U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.
In its lawsuit, EEOC v. Hibbing Taconite Company, Civ. No. 09-729 (RHK/RLE), the EEOC charged Hibbing Taconite Company discriminated against a deaf applicant by denying him employment at its mine. The EEOC contends that Hibbing Taconite rejected the man, who formerly worked for LTV Mining, because of his hearing impairment, in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA).
Hibbing Taconite filed a motion for summary judgment alleging it was entitled to an immediate judgment in its favor and without trial because, it contended, there were no disputed issues of fact, and that the applicant was not qualified because of his deafness for the positions for which he applied, including three in the plant and two in the open pit mine,.
Although the court granted summary judgment as to the jobs in the plant, it found there was ample evidence on which a jury could find the man could have performed the jobs in the open pit mine with a reasonable accommodation: “The very fact that (the applicant) successfully worked at the LTV mine pit is strong evidence that a reasonable accommodation could have been possible,” the judge said.
The court also concluded a jury could find Hibbing Taconite acted in bad faith when it initially reversed its decision to interview the man after it learned he was deaf: “Hibbing demonstrated bad faith when it rescinded its interview offer immediately upon learning of the man’s disability,” the judge wrote. (workersxzcompxzkit). A trial date is set in Duluth, Minnesota for July 26, 2010.
“Employment discrimination cases are often fact-intensive and, like this one, cannot be resolved without trial,” said the EEOC’s regional attorney in Chicago, John Hendrickson. “After all, resolving issues of fact is what juries do. But Hibbing Taconite proposed, wrongly, that everything in this case so favored the company there was no reason to have a jury decide anything. That proposition could not be sustained, and the court rejected it, clearing the way for a jury trial. So, now we move to that stage, and we are, of course, pleased that this disable worker will have his chance to tell a jury exactly what happened to him.”
Author Robert Elliott, executive vice president, Amaxx Risks Solutions, Inc. has worked successfully for 20 years with many industries to reduce Workers’ Compensation costs, including airlines, healthcare, manufacturing, printing/publishing, pharmaceuticals, retail, hospitality and manufacturing. Contact: Robert_Elliott@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com or 860-553-6604.
FREE WC IQ Test: http://www.workerscompkit.com/intro/
WC Books: http://www.reduceyourworkerscomp.com/workers-comp-books-manuals.php
WC Calculator: http://www.reduceyourworkerscomp.com/calculator.php
TD Calculator: http://www.reduceyourworkerscomp.com/transitional-duty-cost-calculator.php
Do not use this information without independent verification. All state laws vary. You should consult with your insurance broker or agent about workers' comp issues.
©2010 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved under International Copyright Law. If you would like permission to reprint this material, contact Info@WorkersCompKit.com
