Summerland v. Constellation Energy Generation LLC, 1:24-cv-06390

Plaintiff, Betty J. Summerland, an employee at a nuclear power plant, alleges longstanding discrimination and retaliation related to her mental health conditions and requests for leave under FMLA and accommodations under the ADA.
The complaint initially arose after Summerland's FMLA leave and requests for accommodations allegedly led to threats regarding her job status and access to the facility.
After settling similar claims in an earlier case ("Summerland I"), Summerland claims that, following a personal tragedy, Defendants again demanded sensitive medical information, denied reasonable accommodations, and imposed burdensome requirements affecting her health and employment.
Defendants, including her employer, Constellation, and its medical reviewers (Dr. Pohlman and Triangle Occupational Medicine), moved to dismiss claims under multiple employment laws and common-law torts.
The motions argued both legal preclusion based on federal regulations for nuclear plants and alleged insufficiency of the pleadings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
NRC Regulations Bar Suit	Section 26.189(d) does not bar court review; regulation does not apply to courts.	NRC rules preclude second fitness-for-duty determinations, barring the suit.	Regulation does not apply to courts; suit not barred.
Security Clearance Doctrine (Egan)	This is not a security clearance or classified info case.	Egan precludes court review of security-related job decisions.	Egan not applicable; case concerns building access, not classified data.
Sufficiency of Adverse Employment Action	Suffered actions (loss of access, threats, job loss risks) that would dissuade a reasonable employee from protected activity.	No adverse action sufficiently serious to give rise to liability.	Allegations plausibly state adverse actions; claims survive.
Who is an "Employer" Under Statutes	Dr. Pohlman/Triangle acted with control over job access, qualifying under broad definitions.	Dr. Pohlman/Triangle are not statutory "employers" (esp. under ADA/GINA requiring 15+ employees).	FMLA claim survives; insufficient facts to dismiss for ADA/GINA/GIPA at this stage.
Illinois Common Law Claims	Sufficient facts for IIED, invasion of privacy, and conspiracy based on targeted, extreme conduct.	No extreme conduct or underlying tortious act; privacy claim unavailable as info voluntarily disclosed.	IIED and conspiracy claims survive; privacy claim not dismissed at this stage; further fact development needed.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard for plausibility)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading rule)
Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (limits on court review of security clearance decisions)
EEOC v. AIC Security Investigations, Ltd., 55 F.3d 1276 (definition of "employer" under ADA)
Alexander v. Rush N. Shore Med. Ctr., 101 F.3d 487 (control necessary for common law "employer" status)