Appellate Successes
Aaron Maduff handled his first employment appeal (a case handled before the District Court until the last minute by other counsel) within 6 months of being licensed to practice. Though that case resulted in a split opinion in the employer's favor it was an argument that needed to be made. Over all, through careful case selection and thorough preparation, the firm has prevailed in more than 70% of its employment appeals sending apparently lost cases back to the District Court for trial or preserving a jury verdict. (Compare this to a national average of roughly 8% of cases won at the appellate courts by employees.) Some of those appeals are described below.
Illinois Appellate Court (2nd District)
2-08-0102
(Missouri Law Applies In Illinois)
Our client headed the Missouri Office of an Illinois Company. We filed a discrimination claim in Illinois Court for violations of the Missouri Human Rights Act. The Illinois Court dismissed the case because under the Illinois Human Rights Act a complaint of discrimination must be brought in the Illinois Human Rights Commission and not in court. (While the case was pending, that law was changed in 2007 in part as a result of efforts by Aaron Maduff. Please see "The Right to Sue" on our Legislative Efforts Page.) The Illinois Appellate Court reversed noting that Illinois Courts must enforce the laws of sister states and that it was not against public policy in Illinois as evidenced by the recently passed right to sue law. This ruling not only brought our client's case back to life, but set the table for violations of other states anti-discrimination laws to be tried in Illinois.
United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
05-4197
(FMLA: The Fifth Element; and Ohio Disability Law: Perception of a Disability)
This Ohio based case included several different claims: Interference with Family and Medical Leave Act leave, and Discrimination on the basis that the employer believed our client was disabled in violation of Ohio Disability Law. In 2003, the company's doctor learned our client was having neck pain and put her on light duty limiting her to lifting 5 pounds at work. With no work to meet that severe restriction, the company put her on involuntary FMLA leave until she took a physical exam to prove she could do more. But then the company would not allow her to take the exam until she had been off of all pain medication for 2 weeks claiming she was drug dependent. Although our client was capable of working (and lifting more than 5 pounds), her doctors warned her not to stop taking the pain medication and as a result the company did not let her take the physical exam and therefore did not allow her back to work. It then terminated her for excessive medical leave.
The District Court had determined that our client was only alleging FMLA Retaliation and not simple interference with her right to take leave. In reversing, the 6th Circuit found that five "elements" had to be met to claim interference with her FMLA rights: 1) that our client was eligible; 2) that the company was covered under the FMLA; 3) that our client was entitled to FMLA leave; 4) that our client gave notice; and 5) that FMLA leave was denied. No one disputed the first four elements, but the 5th element required clarification from the Appeals Court which determined that it was met so long as FMLA leave was used as a "negative factor" in an employment decision as it was here — our client was terminated.
As to the Ohio Disability law, the District Court had decided that our client had not shown that the company regarded her as disabled because the company's doctor only said that she could not lift 5 pounds at work which did not mean that she could not lift 5 pounds at home. The District Court also decided that drug dependency was not a disability. In reversing, the 6th Circuit noted that the company doctor could not tell her what to do at home, but he obviously believed that lifting 5 pounds was dangerous, and that if it had no work for her at all because of drug dependency, then it necessarily believed that she was unable to work generally which is a disability under Ohio Law. This was an extremely complex case that improved the law for employees in a lot of ways.
United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
05-2355
(The Question of Union Liability)
In 2003, the 7th Circuit had apparently ruled that unions could not be held liable for discrimination by its members when they are on the job. In this case, our client sued the union because its members refused to provide her on the job training and because the union refused to issue her temporary mechanics permits which would have permitted her to work at full wages. The District Court found that the union member mechanics had discriminated against her, but that because that discrimination took place on the job, the union could not be held liable under the 2003 case. The 7th Circuit reversed the case finding that where training is involved, a union could be held liable and should be held liable in this case.
United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
02-3202
(The Punitive Damages Challenge)
Defendant claimed that the $270,000 award of punitive damages against it by a jury was unwarranted because its senior management was unaware of the retaliatory acts of its employees. We argued to the Court that the employer had lied to the EEOC and that this was sufficient to justify the punitive damages award. The 7th Circuit agreed. The case has since become a major precedent in determining the reasonableness of compensatory (pain and suffering) and punitive damage awards.
United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
00 - 2884
(The Biased Juror)
On April 19, 2001, the Seventh Circuit Reversed a Jury Verdict in favor of the Defendant acknowledging that our client may not have received a fair trial because one of the jurors may not have been impartial. In so doing, the Court explained the legal standards for striking jurors for bias. As a result, this race discrimination case against a major Chicago law firm Defendant was set for a new trial.
United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
98-1563
(The Definition of Employment Retaliation)
In this unusual case, the District Court determined that a phone call to the police by the company falsely alleging that our client was armed and dangerous was not related to our client's employment and therefore not actionable in court. We argued that the law prohibits retaliation against current employees regardless of whether the retaliatory act is related to the employment. Clarifying earlier opinions, the 7th Circuit held that where the employee is still employed, the retaliatory acts are illegal and actionable.
| 
