ADDITIONAL VERDICTS OF PARTICULAR INTEREST. Discrimination. $______ RECOVERY

• Pages: 17-18

her replacement on January 13 – the day before she

wouldhavereturnedtowork.Theemployeefileda

complaint with the EEOC which investigated and

determined that the defendant violated the

employee’s rights under the Americans with

Disabilities Act.

The defendant denied any wrongdoing.

The matter was resolved prior to a trial with the defen-

dant’s agreement to pay the employee the sum of

$55,000, and to implement non-monetary relief.

REFERENCE

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission vs. Alden

Estates of Naperville. Case no. 1:14-cv-5588, 07-13-

15.

Attorneys for plaintiff: Jeanne Szromba and Diane

Smason of Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission in Chicago, IL.

$48,000 RECOVERY

EEOC – Discrimination – EEOC accuses company

of firing employee after she requested maternity

leave – Alleged violation of Pregnancy

Discrimination Act.

U.S. District Court, Middle, North Carolina

In this action, the U.S. Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission (EEOC) accused a

Winston-Salem heath care company of pregnancy

discrimination. The suit was resolved via

settlement.

The defendant, Level Four Orthotics & Prosthetics,

Inc., is a privately owned health care company that

specializes in providing orthotic and prosthetic care

to pediatric and special needs patients. In May 2013,

the complainant, Lesley L., was interviewed and hired

for a billing and authorization specialist position with

the defendant. The next month, the complainant re-

quested approximately four weeks of maternity leave

beginning around August 2013. The company fired

the complainant later that month after her supervisor

told the company’s then-owner about her maternity

leave request. The EEOC later accused the company

of unlawfully firing the complainant because of her

pregnancy and request for maternity leave.

The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina after first attempting to reach

a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation pro-

cess. The defendant was accused of pregnancy dis-

crimination in violation of the Pregnancy

Discrimination Act (PDA), an amendment to the Title

VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC sought in-

junctive relief, as well as monetary relief for

complainant.

The matter was resolved with a settlement, in which

defendant agreed to pay complainant $48,000 in

monetary relief. The defendant also agreed to a five-

year consent decree, under which the defendant is

prohibited from taking adverse personnel actions

against an employee based on her sex or pregnancy

status. The defendant also agreed to annually train its

managers and employees on Title VII and the policy,

and to report to the EEOC the names of employees

who disclosed their pregnancies to the company and

how their employment was affected afterward.

REFERENCE

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission vs. Level

Four Orthotics & Prosthetics. Case no. 1:15-cv-00043,

07-16-15.

Attorney for plaintiff: Darryl L. Edwards of Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission in Charlotte,

NC. Attorneys for defendant: Jeffrey Dean Patton &

King F. Tower of Spilman, Thomas, & Battle, PLLC in

Roanoke, VA.

Discrimination

$102,048 RECOVERY

EEOC – Discrimination – EEOC accuses major

retailer of refusal to hire applicant because kidney

disease precluded urine sample – Alleged

violation of ADA.

Baltimore County, MD

In this action, the U.S. Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission (EEOC) accused a major

retail chain of disability discrimination. The matter

was resolved through a consent decree.

The defendant, Kmart Corporation, is an American

chain of discount department stores headquartered

in Hoffman Estates, Illinois. The complainant, Lorenzo

C., was offered a job at the defendant’s Hyattsville,

Maryland store and thereafter, advised his hiring

manager that he could not provide a urine sample

for the mandatory pre-employment drug test due to

his kidney disease and dialysis. The complainant re-

quested as a reasonable accommodation that he

be given an alternate test, such as a blood or hair

test, that did not require a urine sample. The defen-

dant refused to provide the alternative test and

denied complainant employment.

VERDICTS BY CATEGORY 17

National Jury Verdict Review & Analysis

Subscribe Now