Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
O'Neal v. Gate Gourmet, Inc.
No. 03 C 0630 (N.D. Ill. filed, Jan. 28, 2003) ; Clearinghouse Number: 55135
Description
Former Employee Claims That Employer’s Mandatory Termination Policy Following Fifteen Months of Medical Leave Violates ADA
Abstract
A man with bipolar disorder filed a complaint alleging that his
former employer, an airport food service company, violated the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) when employer forced him into
medical leave and ultimately fired him from his job as a truck
driver. After working for defendant for about one year, plaintiff
went on leave for brain surgery and was diagnosed with bipolar
disorder. Medication controlled many of the disorder’s
symptoms, and plaintiff returned to work. Years later
plaintiff’s doctor restricted his lifting due to a hernia.
While plaintiff’s job did not require lifting above the
restriction, plaintiff told his employer of the restriction.
Plaintiff alleges that his employer used the lifting restriction to
assert that plaintiff’s previous medical release to return to
work was not unrestricted. Defendant forced plaintiff to take
medical leave, and he remained on it for over a year. Defendant
then fired him pursuant to company policy requiring termination
after fifteen months’ leave. Plaintiff claims that defendant
violated the ADA by forcing him into medical leave, refusing to
reinstate him despite his ability to work, refusing to discuss
accommodation of his disability, and discharging him under an
unlawful policy. Plaintiff alleges that he is disabled, has a
history of disability, and was regarded by defendant as having a
disability.
