167 F. Supp. 3d 940
N.D. Ind.2016Background
- Rodgers, a GCSC custodian since 1995, alleges PTSD after a 2011 workplace sexual assault by a coworker.
- She claims ongoing PTSD-related effects and requests reasonable accommodations.
- She filed an EEOC charge in 2012 and sues for ADA violation (Count I), Title VII retaliation (Count II), and intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count III).
- GCSC moves for summary judgment on all counts; the court also rules on a motion to strike two Mirro letters.
- The court ultimately grants summary judgment on Counts II and III, but denies summary judgment on the ADA reasonable accommodation claim (Count I).
- Exhibits Mirro letters are addressed for admissibility/summary-judgment purposes; the court notes potential need for admissible form at trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADA failure to accommodate claim | Rodgers is disabled by PTSD and GCSC failed to engage the interactive process. | GCSC did not have adequate knowledge of disability; accommodations were not reasonably required. | GCSC not entitled to summary judgment on Count I; material factual disputes remain. |
| Exhaustion of administrative remedies for ADA claim | EEOC charge reasonably related to ADA claims in complaint. | Limited to the specifics of the charge. | Not procedurally barred; liberal construction allowed broader claims. |
| Title VII retaliation—adverse employment action | Denied a promotion/hiring and other adverse actions tied to protected activity. | No actionable adverse action occurred; retaliation claim fails. | Summary judgment for GCSC on Count II (no adverse action proven). |
| Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (ITCA/Ind. state-law claim) | ITCA notice requirements met; distress claim should proceed. | ITCA notice was not properly filed. | Summary judgment proper on Count III; ITCA notice not established; claim waived. |
Key Cases Cited
- Beck v. Univ. of Wisconsin Bd. of Regents, 75 F.3d 1130 (7th Cir. 1996) (interactive-process obligation for reasonable accommodations; no rigid rules)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (S. Ct. 1986) (genuine disputes of material fact preclude summary judgment only where reasonable jury could return a verdict for nonmovant)
- Roesel v. Joliet Wrought Washer Co., 596 F.2d 183 (7th Cir. 1979) (liberal reading of EEOC charges permits related claims to proceed)
- Cheek v. Western and Southern Life Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 497 (7th Cir. 1994) (liberal construction of EEOC charges; related claims permissible)
- Palmer v. Marion Cnty., 327 F.3d 588 (7th Cir. 2003) (waiver of claims not presented on summary judgment briefing)