Rehearing Denied in AIDS Employment Discrimination Case
EEOC v. LEE’S LOG CABIN (February 2, 2009)
Korrin Stewart was diagnosed as HIV-positive when she was just fourteen years old. Shortly thereafter, she learned that it had actually developed into AIDS. At the age of eighteen, she applied for a wait-staff position at Lee’s Log Cabin (“Lee’s”). Lee’s found out that Stewart was HIV+. In fact, the manager wrote the notation “HIV+” on her application. The EEOC filed suit when Lee’s did not hire Stewart. Shortly before trial, the EEOC presented affidavits from Stewart and her doctors describing how AIDS affected her daily activities. The district court rejected the affidavits because the EEOC had never pleaded the presence of AIDS and, the court found, AIDS and HIV-positive were not synonymous. The court granted summary judgment for Lee’s. The panel of the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The Court thought that the EEOC “complicated the inquiry” by attempting to refashion its claim as AIDS claim late in the case. The Court called it a “major alteration” of the EEOC’s case. Relying on significant symptomatic differences at different stages of the disease, the Court thought it was highly relevant whether Stewart was HIV-positive or had AIDS. The EEOC sought rehearing and rehearing en banc.
In their opinion, the full Court denied the petition.
Judge Williams, joined by Judges Rovner, Wood and Evans dissented. Judge Williams echoed the content of her dissent to the panel opinion. She thought that the majority imposed a higher pleading threshold on individuals with complex, multi-level diseases. Such a requirement is inconsistent with the notice pleading requirement. The exact stage of a disease, including HIV, is an irrelevant detail, and should not be a pleading requirement. Judge Williams also disagreed with the majority’s alternate ground – that an employer has to have specific knowledge of how far an employee’s disability has advanced to be liable. It should be enough if the employer knows about the existence of the impairment, even if unaware of its specific stage.
Michael Rigney practices in the law offices of GVC Ltd. in Chicago. In this blog, he reports on select