32 F. Supp. 3d 918
N.D. Ill.2014Background
- CRCC and McKinney sue Pepper and WorkSTEPS under the ADA and Declaratory Judgment Act; both move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1)/(6).
- Court assumes factual allegations true for purposes of dismissal.
- McKinney applied to Pepper for carpentry work; pre-employment physical/medical exams were conducted by WorkSTEPS-affiliated clinics.
- Pepper refused to hire McKinney based on test outcomes; heart-rate data and diabetes were cited.
- Plaintiffs allege pre-offer examinations impermissibly discriminate against disabled applicants and misuse medical information; Count I seeks injunctive/declaratory relief, Count II seeks damages.
- Court dismisses all claims against WorkSTEPS; Pepper’s dismissal of CRCC’s Count I is granted without prejudice; Count II remains against Pepper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADA liability of a non-employer third party | McKinney/CRCC allege WorkSTEPS caused discrimination. | WorkSTEPS not an employer or indirect/ joint employer. | WorkSTEPS dismissed; no liability as to WorkSTEPS. |
| CRCC associational standing | CRCC has injuries to members; standing via association. | CRCC lacks injury in fact for Count I. | CRCC has associational standing for Count II; Count I dismissed without prejudice. |
| Exhaustion of administrative remedies (piggybacking) | CRCC may piggyback on McKinney’s EEOC charge for Count II. | CRCC cannot piggyback for Count I without class-based notice. | Count I piggyback not permitted; Count I dismissed without prejudice; Count II may piggyback. |
| Scope of pre-employment testing liability | Testing violated ADA by testing non-essential functions and disability-related inquiries. | Testing/Provider engaged in permissible pre-employment process. | Pepper’s motion granted on Count I; claims limited to Count II. |
| Association standing requirements ( Hunt v. etc.) | Elements met for representational standing. | Not all elements shown. | Hunt elements satisfied for CRCC’s standing to pursue Count II. |
Key Cases Cited
- Alexander v. Rush N. Shore Med. Ctr., 101 F.3d 487 (7th Cir.1996) (employment relationship required for direct liability; indirect theories possible under certain circumstances)
- Hayden v. La-Z-Boy Chair Co., 9 F.3d 617 (7th Cir.1993) (factors for third-party liability include control over worker and operations)
- Duncan v. Fleetwood Motor Homes, 518 F.3d 486 (7th Cir.2008) (employer liable for discriminatory actions even when outsourced testing or duties occur)
- Anderson v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 852 F.2d 1008 (7th Cir.1988) (piggybacking permissible when charge gives notice of potential class-wide discrimination)