351 F. Supp. 3d 1163
N.D. Iowa2018Background
- EEOC sued CRST entities under Titles I and V of the ADA alleging CRST refused to hire charging party L.L. because of PTSD/mood disorder and his request to use an emotional support/service dog as an accommodation.
- L.L. applied in May 2015; he had a civil commitment in March 2015 and later obtained commercial driving employment in November 2015.
- Defendants admitted in their answer that the ADA pre‑suit process was completed; they later sought to amend to withdraw that admission based on medical records disclosed during discovery.
- Defendants moved to amend their answer after discovery; court denied the motion as untimely under Rule 16 and Sherman because defendants delayed five months after learning the alleged basis for amendment.
- EEOC moved to strike materials defendants filed that described conciliation communications; court struck a conciliation proposal letter and limited other references consistent with §2000e‑5(b) and Mach Mining.
- On cross motions for summary judgment, court denied summary judgment on discrimination, retaliation, and interference claims (genuine factual disputes remain), but held compensatory and punitive damages are not available for the ADA retaliation and interference claims and struck EEOC's jury demand for those claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to amend answer (scheduling good cause) | Defendants could not know pre‑suit/conciliation issues until medical records produced in discovery | Defendants delayed after learning facts and failed to show diligence; delay prejudicial | Denied; Sherman requires good cause and defendants unexplained 5‑month delay means no good cause |
| Use of conciliation communications (§2000e‑5(b)) | Such communications are confidential and must be stricken; sealing insufficient | Defendants say confidentiality waived or Rule 408 allows admissibility | Letter proposing conciliation struck; limited, non‑substantive references about whether EEOC attempted conciliation allowed; specific references to positions taken during conciliation struck (Mach Mining governs) |
| Discrimination (qualified individual) | L.L. had CDL and later drove for another company—so he was qualified | Medical records (civil commitment, psychiatric history) create dispute; would have failed medical exam if disclosed | Genuine factual dispute exists whether L.L. could perform essential functions at time of application; summary judgment denied |
| Retaliation & interference (liability & remedies) | EEOC: request for accommodation proximate to denial supports retaliation/interference | CRST: no hiring based on neutral no‑pets policy; damages limited to equitable relief | Genuine factual disputes preclude summary judgment for liability; compensatory/punitive damages not available for ADA retaliation/interference; jury demand stricken for those claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Sherman v. Winco Fireworks, Inc., 532 F.3d 709 (8th Cir. 2008) (scheduling‑order good‑cause/diligence requirement for late amendments)
- EEOC v. Associated Dry Goods Corp., 449 U.S. 590 (1981) (conciliation confidentiality promotes candor; non‑disclosure rule)
- Mach Mining, LLC v. EEOC, 135 S. Ct. 1645 (2015) (courts may review whether EEOC attempted conciliation but may not admit or disclose statements/positions from conciliation)
- Jessie v. Potter, 516 F.3d 709 (8th Cir. 2008) (discussion of pleading conditions precedent in employment suits)
- Kramer v. Banc of Am. Sec., LLC, 355 F.3d 961 (7th Cir. 2004) (compensatory and punitive damages unavailable for ADA retaliation claims under §1981a construction)
- Foster v. Time Warner Entm't Co., L.P., 250 F.3d 1189 (8th Cir. 2001) (upheld damages award on retaliation claim on the record presented; did not decide statutory availability of compensatory/punitive damages)
- Salitros v. Chrysler Corp., 306 F.3d 562 (8th Cir. 2002) (addressed punitive damages posture on ADA retaliation claim on appeal; did not resolve statutory availability)