Background

• EEOC and Anderson proposed a consent decree with Product Fabricators to ensure ADA compliance; district court denied continuing jurisdiction for two years.
• Anderson was terminated after reporting an injury and medication use under the company's drug policy, which allegedly violated the ADA's medical inquiry and confidentiality provisions.
• The proposed decree required destruction of unlawfully obtained medical records, ADA training, posting of notices, and annual compliance reporting for two years.
• District court found the EEOC failed to show a basis for continuing jurisdiction and did not address the drug policy's scope.
• Eighth Circuit vacated the district court's decision and remanded to consider continuing jurisdiction in light of federal interests and pattern of violations.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Local Number 93, Int'l Ass'n of Firefighters v. City of Cleveland, 478 U.S. 501 (1986) (federal settlement may serve legitimate federal interests)
• Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36 (1974) (private action supports policy against discrimination)
• Fre w v. Hawkins, 540 U.S. 431 (2004) (federal interest protected by consent decrees)
• United States v. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer Dist., 952 F.2d 1040 (1992) (review of consent decree for fairness and adequacy)
• Local Number 93, Int'l Ass'n of Firefighters v. City of Cleveland, 478 U.S. 501 (1986) (reiterated importance of continuing court involvement)
• EEOC v. Siouxland Oral Maxillofacial Surgery Assocs., L.L.P., 578 F.3d 921 (2009) (recognizes post-settlement enforcement considerations)
• Carson v. American Brands, Inc., 450 U.S. 79 (1981) (settlements favored when furthering statutory objectives)