Case: 1:12-cv-07793 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/28/12 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

Harris Bank,

)

)

Defendant

)

__________________________________________)

CIVIL ACTION NO. C O M P L A I N T
JURY TRIAL DEMAND

NATURE OF THE ACTION

This is an action under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”) and

Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices. The Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) alleges that Harris Bank (“Defendant”) violated

the ADA by:

1) Terminating the employment of Charging Parties Araceli Hurtado, Regina Sanders,

Cynthia Pickens, and Erika Rodriguez and a class of qualified disabled employees rather

than accommodating them;

2) Failing to provide reasonable accommodations to Araceli Hurtado, Regina Sanders,

Cynthia Pickens, and Erika Rodriguez and a class of qualified disabled employees who

were able to return to work from medical leave. Such accommodations could include

extension of leave with job protection, allowance of intermittent leave when the

employee returns to work, and/or other accommodations permitted under the ADA.

3) Discriminating against Araceli Hurtado, Regina Sanders, Cynthia Pickens, and Erika

Rodriguez and a class of disabled former employees by failing to rehire them after being

terminated pursuant to its medical leave policy.

Case: 1:12-cv-07793 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/28/12 Page 2 of 9 PageID #:2
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 107(a) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a), which incorporates by reference Section 706 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5. 2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the State of Illinois and elsewhere where Defendant does business in the United States.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff EEOC is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title I of the ADA and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 107(a) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a), which incorporates by reference Section 706(f)(1) and (3), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3). 4. At all relevant times, Defendant was doing business in the State of Illinois and had at least 15 employees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant was an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce under Section 101(5) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12111(5), and Section 101(7) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12111(7), which incorporates by reference Sections 701(g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(g) and (h). 6. At all relevant times, Defendant was a covered entity under Section 101(2) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12111(2).
2

Case: 1:12-cv-07793 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/28/12 Page 3 of 9 PageID #:3
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 7. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Araceli Hurtado, Regina Sanders, Cynthia Pickens, and Erika Rodriguez filed Charges of Discrimination with the EEOC alleging violations of Title I of the ADA by Defendant. 8. On August 1, 2011, the EEOC determined that there was reasonable cause to believe that Defendant had violated the ADA. 9. On August 1, 2011, the EEOC invited the parties to engage in conciliation. 10. On August 3, 2012, the EEOC informed the parties that the EEOC was unable to secure from the Defendant a conciliation agreement acceptable to the Commission. 11. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 12. Since at least 2006, Defendant has maintained an inflexible medical leave policy which does not provide for reasonable accommodation of qualified individuals with disabilities and which instead provides for termination of their employment, in violation of Sections 102(a), 102(b)(5)(A), of Title I of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12112(a), 12112(b)(5)(A), and. Defendant has also discriminated against a class of qualified individuals with disabilities by failing to rehire them after being terminated pursuant to its medical leave policy, in violation of Sections 102(a), 102(b)(5)(A) and (b)(5)(B) of Title I of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12112(a), 12112(b)(5)(A) and (b)(5)(B). 13. Each class member is a qualified individual with a disability who could perform the essential duties of his or her job with or without a reasonable accommodation. 14. For example, Charging Party Regina Sanders is a qualified individual with a disability who could perform the essential functions of her job with or without a reasonable accommodation. Sanders worked as a Senior Administrative Assistant in 2006. 15. In or around May 2006, Sanders took a medical leave of absence for reasons related to her disability, colon cancer, and the treatment thereof.
3

Case: 1:12-cv-07793 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/28/12 Page 4 of 9 PageID #:4
16. While Sanders was on medical leave, Defendant filled her position. 17. In February 2007, Sanders was capable of returning to work and, at that time, was still an employee in good standing with Defendant. 18. At no time did Defendant engage in an interactive process to return Sanders to work. 19. Defendant failed to consider Sanders for reassignment for open positions for which she was qualified. After February 2007, Sanders applied for, but did not receive, at least one job at Defendant. 20. Defendant fired Sanders, pursuant to its policy described in paragraph 12, rather than accommodate her by extending her leave, offering her extended job-protection status, offering her other reasonable accommodations, and/or returning her to work in an available position which she could have performed, in violation of Sections 102(a), 102(b)(5)(A), and (b)(5)(B) of Title I of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12112(a), 12112(b)(5)(A), and (b)(5)(B). 21. Charging Party Araceli Hurtado is a qualified individual with a disability who could perform the essential functions of her job with or without a reasonable accommodation. Hurtado worked as a Customer Service Representative from 2004 to 2006. 22. In or around April 2006, Hurtado took a medical leave of absence for reasons related to her disabilities, Bell’s Palsy, anxiety disorder, and depression. 23. Hurtado informed Defendant that she would be able to return to work on or around November 22, 2006. Approximately one week before she was scheduled to return to work from her medical leave, Defendant replaced her. At that time, Hurtado was an employee in good standing with Defendant. 24. Defendant failed to provide Hurtado with the reasonable accommodation of an additional six weeks of job-protected leave, which would have allowed her to return to work at Defendant.
4

Case: 1:12-cv-07793 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/28/12 Page 5 of 9 PageID #:5
25. Defendant failed to consider Hurtado for any accommodation that would have returned her to work, including, but not limited to, reassignment to an open position for which she was qualified.
26. Defendant fired Hurtado on November 22, 2006, the same day that she was released to return to work.
27. Defendant fired Hurtado, pursuant to its policy described in paragraph 12, rather than accommodate her by extending her leave, offering her extended job-protection status, offering her other reasonable accommodations, and/or returning her to work in an available position which she could have performed, in violation of 102(a), 102(b)(5)(A), and (b)(5)(B) of Title I of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12112(a), 12112(b)(5)(A), and (b)(5)(B).
28. Charging Party Cynthia Pickens is a qualified individual with a disability who could perform the essential functions of her job with or without an accommodation. Sanders worked as a Personal Banker from 2001 to 2007.
29. In or around May 2007, Pickens took a medical leave of absence for reasons related to her disability, post traumatic stress disorder and panic attacks resulting therefrom.
30. In or around August 2007, Pickens’ medical leave expired. Around that time, Defendant informed Pickens that she would be terminated pursuant to its medical leave policy if she did not return to work.
31. In or around September 2007, Pickens spoke with Defendant or its medical leave provider and requested additional medical leave.
32. On September 1, 2007, Defendant terminated Pickens because her job had been filled by Defendant.
33. Less than six weeks after her medical leave expired, Pickens was released to return to work.
5

Case: 1:12-cv-07793 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/28/12 Page 6 of 9 PageID #:6
34. In the following year, Pickens applied for no fewer than three jobs at Defendant for which she was qualified, but was not selected for any of the positions.
35. At no time did Defendant engage in an interactive process to return Pickens to work. 36. Defendant failed to consider providing Pickens with any accommodation that would have allowed her to return to work, including, but not limited to, reassignment to an open position for which she was qualified. 37. Defendant fired Pickens, pursuant to its policy described in paragraph 12, rather than accommodate her by extending her leave, by offering her extended job-protection status, by offering her other reasonable accommodations, and/or by returning her to work in an available position which she could have performed, in violation of 102(a), 102(b)(5)(A), and (b)(5)(B) of Title I of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12112(a), 12112(b)(5)(A), and (b)(5)(B). 38. Charging Party Erika Rodriguez is a qualified individual with a disability who could perform the essential functions of her job with or without an accommodation. Rodriguez worked as a Personal Banker from 2005 to 2009. 39. Rodriguez has asthma, which qualifies her as disabled under the ADA. 40. Beginning in June 2009, Rodriguez starting taking intermittent medical leave. 41. In February 2010, Rodriguez exhausted her job-protected medical leave, but due to her disability, she still required intermittent leave to cope with her condition. 42. Defendant refused to give Rodriguez any additional job-protected leave. Rodriguez then was forced to take personal leave when she experienced an asthma attack. Defendant then fired Rodriguez for taking too many personal leave days to recover from asthma attacks. 43. Defendant fired Rodriguez, pursuant to its policy described in paragraph 12, rather than accommodate her by extending her leave, offering her extended job-protection status, offering her other reasonable accommodations, or returning her to work in an available position which she could
6

Case: 1:12-cv-07793 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/28/12 Page 7 of 9 PageID #:7
have performed, in violation of 102(a), 102(b)(5)(A), and (b)(5)(B) of Title I of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12112(a), 12112(b)(5)(A), and (b)(5)(B).
44. Similar to Hurtado, Sanders, Pickens and Rodriguez, each class member is a qualified individual with a disability who could perform the essential functions of his or her job with or without a reasonable accommodation. Because disabilities, and the reasonable accommodations appropriate for particular individuals with disabilities, may vary significantly, the reasonable accommodations which Defendant should have made available to class members to permit them to perform the essential functions of their jobs (with or without a reasonable accommodation), would not have all been the same. The reasonable accommodations would have varied from class member to class member on an individual basis, as determined through an interactive process between Defendant and the individual class members. However, rather than engage in that interactive process and reasonably accommodate these class members, without undue hardship to itself, Defendant terminated the class members’ employment, pursuant to its policy described in paragraph 12.
45. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 12-44 above were intentional.
46. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 12-44 above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Hurtado, Sanders, Pickens and Rodriguez, and a class of qualified individuals with disabilities
47. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraphs 12-44 above has been to deprive Hurtado, Sanders, Pickens and Rodriguez, and a class of qualified individuals with disabilities of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of their disabilities.
7

Case: 1:12-cv-07793 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/28/12 Page 8 of 9 PageID #:8
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it from engaging in employment practices which discriminate on the basis of disability; B. Order Defendant to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for qualified individuals with disabilities, and which eradicate the effects of the unlawful employment practices of Defendant; C. Order Defendant to make whole Hurtado, Sanders, Pickens and Rodriguez and a class of qualified individuals with disabilities by providing appropriate back pay with pre-judgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices; D. Order Defendant to make whole Hurtado, Sanders, Pickens and Rodriguez and a class of qualified individuals with disabilities by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from their unlawful termination, including, but not limited to, job search expenses; E. Order Defendant to make whole Hurtado, Sanders, Pickens and Rodriguez and a class of qualified individuals with disabilities by providing compensation for non-pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraphs 12-44 above, including, but not limited to, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial; F. Order Defendant to pay Hurtado, Sanders, Pickens and Rodriguez and a class of qualified individuals with disabilities punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct, as described in paragraphs 12-44 above, in an amount to be determined at trial;
8

Case: 1:12-cv-07793 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/28/12 Page 9 of 9 PageID #:9
G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest; and
H. Award the Commission its costs of this action.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint. Respectfully submitted,
P. DAVID LOPEZ General Counsel JAMES LEE Deputy General Counsel U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 131 M Street, NE Washington, D.C. 20507 /s/ John C. Hendrickson John C. Hendrickson Regional Attorney /s/ Diane I. Smason Diane I. Smason Supervisory Trial Attorney /s/ Aaron R. DeCamp Aaron R. DeCamp Trial Attorney EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 500 West Madison Street, Suite 2000 Chicago, Illinois 60661 312-869-8106
9

 
 CCaassee:: 11::1122--ccvv--0077793 Documeennt##::1147-1FFilieledd::0054/0/225//1133PPaaggee 11 of 13 PaaggeeiIDD##::3561

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

)

v.

)

)

HARRIS BANK,

)

)

Defendant.

)

------------------------------,)

No.12 C 7793
Judge Leinenweber Magistrate Judge Cox

CONSENT DECREE

THE LITIGATION

1. Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "EEOC") filed this

action on September 28, 2012 alleging that Defendant BMO Harris Bank N.A. ("Harris Bank"),

violated Tide I of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12112, by:

a. Terminating the employment of Charging Parties Araceli Hurtado, Regina

Sanders, Cynthia Pickens, and Erika Rodriguez (hereinafter "Charging Parties")

and a class of qualified disabled employees rather than accommodating them;

b. Failing to provide reasonable accommodations to the Charging Parties and a

class of qualified disabled employees who were able to return to work from

medical leave. Such accommodations could include extension of leave with job

protection, allowance of intermittent leave when the employee returns to work,

and/or other accommodations permitted under the ADA; and

c. Discriminating against the Charging Parties and a class of disabled former

employees by failing to rehire them after being terminated pursuant to its medical

leave policy.

CCaassee: 11::1122-cv--077933 DDooccuummeenntt##: :1147-1FFilieledd::0054//0225//1133 PPaage 2 of 133 PPaaggeeiIDD##:3:572

2.

In the interest of resolving this matter, and as a result of having engaged in

comprehensive settlement negotiations, the parties have agreed that this action should be finally

resolved by entry of this Consent Decree (hereafter "Decree"). This Decree fully and finally

resolves any and all issues and claims arising out of the Complaint filed by EEOC in this action.

Neither party admits the claims or defenses of the other. Nothing in this Decree will be admissible

in any proceeding as evidence of a violation of any law, except in a proceeding to enforce or

implement the Decree.

FINDINGS

3.

Having carefully examined the terms and provisions of this Decree, and based on the

pleadings, record, and stipulations of the parties, the Court finds the following:

parties.

a.

This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action and of the

b.

The terms of this Decree are adequate, fair, reasonable, equitable, and just.

The rights of EEOC, the Charging Parties, the claimants, and the public interest are adequately

protected by this Decree.

G.

This Decree conforms with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the

ADA and is not in derogation of the rights or privileges of any person. The entry of this Decree will

further the objectives of the ADA, and will be in the best interests of the parties, the Charging

Parties, the claimants, and the public.

CCaasse: 11::1122-cv-0779933 DDooccuummeenntt##: :1147-1FFilieledd::0054//0225//1133 PPaage 3 off 1133 PPaaggeeiIDD##:3:583

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT:

. IN-TUNCTION AGAINST DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
4. Harris Bank and its officers, agents, employees, successors and ass1gns, and all persons acting in concert with it are hereby enjoined from discriminating on the basis of disability by

not providing reasonable accommodation(s) to employees who state their interest in returning to

work from a medical leave of absence and who qualify for reasonable accommodation under the ADA.

IN-TUNCTION AGAINST RETALIATION
5. Harris Bank its officers, agents, employees, successors, assigns and all persons acting

in concert with it will not engage in any form of retaliation against any person because such person

has opposed any practice as unlawful under the ADA, filed a Charge of Discrimination under the

ADA, testified or participated in any manner in any investigation, proceeding, or hearing under the

ADA, or asserted any rights under this Decree.

MONETARY RELIEF

6. Harris Bank will pay monetary damages totaling $400,000 to the following fourteen (14) persons (collectively, "Claimants"). The division among the Claimants is as follows:

Name

Award Amount

1. Erica Rodriguez

2.

Cynthia Pickens

$37,500 $37,500

3.

Regina Sanders

$37,500

4.

Araceli Hurtado

5.

Angela Trunzo

$37,500 $25,000

6.

Charmecca Townsend

$25,000

CCaassee:: 11::1122--ccvv--00777793 Document##::1147-1FFileiledd::0054/0/225/1/133PPaaggee 44 ooff 13 PaggeeiIDD ##::3594

7.

Carey Grabe

$25,000

8.

Kystina Sonner

$25,000

9.

Margaret Larson

10. Richard Wright

$25,000 $25,000

11. Rudy Woodward 12. Banuma Vijapura 13. Angela Rankins 14. Griselda Green

$25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000

7. Within one hundred twenty (120) days after entry of this Decree, EEOC will mail a copy of the Release Agreement (attached hereto as Exhibit A) to each Claimant. The Claimant must execute and return the Release Agreement to EEOC in order to receive the payment set forth in

Paragraph 6. EEOC will forward to Harris Bank the executed Release Agreements as it receives them from each Claimant.

8. Within ten (10) days after receipt by Harris Bank of a signed Release Agreement for

each Claimant, Harris Bank will issue and send by certified mail a check in the amount set forth

above in Paragraph 6 to the Claimant who has signed the Release Agreement, with a copy of the check sent to EEOC. Harris Bank will issue the checks as the Release Agreements are received by Harris Bank and will not wait for receipt of all Release Agreements before issuing the checks to

Claimants whose signed Release Agreements have been received. Harris Bank will send the checks

to the addresses listed on the Release Agreements.

9. The monetary awards will be allocated 100% to compensatory damages, and no deductions will be taken out of them. The recipient of each award will be responsible for the payment of all taxes due on the award.

CCaassee:: 11::1122--ccvv--0077779933 DDooccuummeenntt##::1147-1FFileiledd::0054/0/225/1/133PPaaggee 55 ooff 1133 PPaaggeeiIDD##::4505
10. In the event that EEOC using best efforts is unable to locate any of the Claimants within one hundred and twenty (120) days after the Consent Decree is entered, the amounts allocated to such Claimants will be divided among the Claimants who have signed Release Agreements, in amounts determined by EEOC. Within ten (10) days after EEOC notifies Harris Bank of how the remaining amount will be allocated to the Claimants who have signed Release Agreements, Harris Bank will issue and send by certified mail a check in the amount set forth by EEOC. Claimants receiving additional amounts will not be required to sign an additional release in order to receive such payment.
POSTING OF NOTICE 11. Within twenty (20) calendar days after entry of this Decree, Harris Bank will post at each of its locations same-sized copies of the Notice attached as Exhibit B to this Decree on bulletin boards usually used by Harris Bank for communicating with all its employees. The Notices will remain posted for two (2) years from entry of the Decree. 12. Harris Bank shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that the posting is not altered, defaced or covered by any other material. Harris Bank shall certify to EEOC in writing within thirty (30) calendar days after entry of this Decree that it has used its best efforts to ensure that the Notice has been properly posted and that it is unaware of any Harris Bank location in which the Notice has not been posted. Harris Bank will permit a representative of EEOC to confirm from time to time that the Notices are posted in the same manner discussed in Paragraph 11.
RECORD KEEPING 13. For a period of two (2) years following entry of this Decree, Harris Bank will maintain a record of employees who state their interest in returning to work at the conclusion of their medical leave of absence and are released to return to work. Harris Bank will record the employee's name, address, and phone number; the employee's job title; the reason for the

CCaassee:: 11::1122--ccvv--007779933 DDooccuummeenntt##::1147-1FFileiledd::0054/0/225/1/133PPaaggee 66 ooff 1133 PPaaggeeiIDD ##::4516
employee's medical leave; the employee's medical condition when released to return to work (including copies of any medical releases/restrictions obtained by Harris Bank or its agents); date the employee's leave began and concluded; the employee's termination date (if any); the accommodations requested by the employee concerning his/her return to work at Harris Bank; if Harris Bank denied the accommodation requested by the employee, any alternative accommodation(s) that it offered to the employee; the accommodations provided to the employee, if any; a list of all positions that were open at the employee's work site at the time the employee requested and was capable of, returning to work at Harris Bank; and names of the personnel who handled the accommodation or termination process for the employee.
14. Harris Bank will make all documents or records referred to in Paragraph 13 above, available for inspection and copying within ten (10) business days after EEOC so requests.
REPORTING 15. Harris Bank will furnish to EEOC written reports semi-annually for a period of two (2) years following entry of this Decree. The first report will be due six months after entry of the Consent Decree, and the reporting will continue every six months thereafter until expiration of the Decree. The final report shall be submitted no later than sixty (60) days prior to the expiration of the Decree. Each report will contain the information maintained pursuant to Paragraphs 13.
TRAINING 16. During each of the two (2) years covered by this Decree, all Harris Bank human resources employees involved in administering medical leaves of absence and management employees, including Accommodation Consultants, will be trained on the duty to accommodate employees under the Americans with Disabilities Act; the intersection between the Family & Medical Leave Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act; and Harris Bank's procedures for providing accommodations to employees on or returning from medical leaves of absence. The first

•

CCaassee::11:1:122--ccvv--007777993 Document##:: 1147-1FiFleiledd: :0054/0/225/1/133PPaaggee 77 ooff 1133 PPaaggeeiIDD ##::4527

training of human resources employees will take place within sixty (60) days of entry of this Decree. For all human resources employees, this training will be in the form of in-person and/or video conference training whereby the participants of the training may pose live questions to the trainer. The first training of management employees will take place within one hundred twenty (120) days after entry of this Decree, will be completed within one hundred eighty (180) days after entry of this Decree and may be conducted in the form of on-line training.
17. Harris Bank will obtain EEOC approval of its proposed trainer(s) or on-line training course prior to the training session. Harris Bank will submit the name, address, telephone number, resume, training proposal, and any materials to be distributed to the participants, to the EEOC at least fifteen (15) days prior to the proposed date(s) of the training. The EEOC will have five (5) calendar days from the date of receipt of the information described above to accept or reject the proposed trainer(s). In the event the EEOC does not approve Harris Bank's designated trainer(s), Harris Bank ~ have twenty (20) calendar days to propose an alternate trainer(s). The EEOC will have five (5) calendar days from the date of receipt of the information described above to accept or reject the alternate trainer(s). If the parties cannot through this process agree on a trainer(s), then they may seek the Court's assistance under Paragraph 21.
18. Harris Bank will certify to the EEOC in writing at the end of each calendar month until the training is completed (i) the date, location and duration of the training; and (ii) the name and position of each person in attendance. Harris Bank will provide EEOC with copies of all materials distributed to the participants if different from those materials previously provided.
REVISION OF HARRIS BANK'S MEDICAL LEAVE POLICIES AND COMMUNICATIONS WITH ITS EMPLOYEES ON MEDICAL LEAVE REGARDING
DISABILI1Y DISCRIMINATION AND ACCOMMODATIONS 19. Within sixty (60) calendar days after entry of this Consent Decree, Harris Bank will implement the following practices:

CCaassee: 11::1122--ccvv--007793 DDoocumeenntt##::1147-1FFilieledd::0054/0/225//1133 PPaaggee 88 ooff 1133 PPaaggeeiIDD##::4538
A. For the duration of the Decree, Harris Bank will employ one or more persons (referred to herein for reference as "Accommodation Consultants") whose responsibilities include ensuring that Harris Bank is compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act as detailed in this Decree. All requests for accommodation from employees who are on a medical leave of absence will be referred to an Accommodation Consultant. No employee on a medical leave of absence will be terminated without the approval of an Accommodation Consultant.
B. Prior to the termination of any employee at the end of their medical leave period, Harris Bank will request from Harris Bank's third-party benefits administrator a copy of any doctor's releases or other communication with the employee for review by an Accommodation Consultant.
C. All employees who take a medical leave of absence will be informed in writing by Harris Bank: (i) · how long their position will be held for them while on leave according to Harris Bank policy, (ii) the right to request that Harris Bank as an accommodation hold their job for a longer period of time than normal policy provides, and (iii) the name and contact information of an Accommodation Consultant or human resources staff person if the employee wants to request an accommodation. The employee's position will not be filled permanendy before confirming whether a request for extended job protection has been made and decided.
D. No later than twenty (20) days prior to the expiration of an employee's medical leave of absence scheduled to be 30 or more days, Harris Bank will inform the employee of his/her right to request a reasonable accommodation to allow the employee to return to work at Harris Bank. Employees will be informed that reasonable accommodations may include, but are not limited to, any of the follo~ng: modified duty, part-time work, intermittent leave, reassignment to a different position, additional job-protected leave, and/or assistive devices. Nothing in this Decree will require Harris Bank to place an employee on an indefinite leave or prohibit Harris Bank from

CCaassee::11:1:122--ccvv--0077779933 Document##:: 1147-1FiFleiledd: :0054/0/225/1/133PPaaggee99ooff1133 PPaaggeeIiDD ##::4549
applying its normal leave administration policy as may be revised from time to time except as set forth herein.
E. For employees who state an interest in returning to work but whose positions have been filled, Harris Bank, as of the date the employee states an interest in returning to work and has been released to return to work, will: (i) first consider reassigning the employee to an open position for which he/she is qualified at the location where the employee last worked and at the Harris Bank location(s) within 10 miles of that location and (ii) if no such position exists, provide the employee with access to a list of open positions within fifty (SO) miles of his/her last work location for the purpose of permitting the employee to identify such positions for which s/he wishes to be considered for reassignment. The reassignment of employees will be made in coordination with an Accommodation Consultant; provided, however, that Harris Bank will decide whether the employee is qualified and, in the event of multiple positions, which position the employee is assigned to. Harris Bank will not require an employee whose job protection has expired to reapply for a position at Harris Bank unless and until an Accommodation Consultant has certified in writing that Harris Bank complied with the procedure set forth in this paragraph.
20. The inclusion of Paragraph 19(A)-(E) in the Decree does not represent the Court's or EEOC's approval of Harris Bank's policies regarding medical leave or its accommodation process. This Decree applies only to employees who have a "disability" within the meaning of the Americans with. Disabilities Act, as amended and its terms will be interpreted and administered in accordance with the ADA.
DISPUTE RESOLUTION 21. In the event that any party to this Decree believes that any other party has failed to comply with any provision(s) of the Decree, the complaining party will notify the other party of the alleged non-compliance and will afford the alleged non-complying party fifteen (15) business days to

CCaassee:: 11::1122--ccvv--00777793 Document##::1147-1FFileiledd::0054/0/225/1/133PPaaggee 1100 oof 113 PageeiIDD ##::4650
remedy the non-compliance or to satisfy the complaining party that the alleged non-complying party has complied. If the alleged non-complying party has not remedied the alleged non-compliance or satisfied the complaining party that it has complied within fifteen (15) business days, the complaining party may apply to the Court for appropriate relief.
DURATION OF THE DECREE AND RETENTION OF JURISDICTION 22. All provisions of this Decree will be in effect (and the Court will retain jurisdiction of this matter to enforce this Decree) for a period of two (2) years immediately following the date of entrance of Consent Decree, provided, however, that if, at the end of the 2 year period, any disputes under Paragraph 21, above, remain unresolved, the term of the Decree will be automatically extended (and the Court will retain jurisdiction of this matter to enforce the Decree) with respect to only the issue(s) in dispute until such time as all such disputes have been resolved.
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 23. Each party to this Decree will bear its own expenses, attorneys' fees, and costs. 24. The terms of this Consent Decree will be binding upon the present and future directors, officers, managers, agents, successors and assigns of Harris Bank. Harris Bank, and any successor(s) of Harris Bank, will provide a copy of this Decree to any organization or person who proposes to acquire or merge with Harris Bank, or any successor of Harris Bank, prior to the effectiveness of any such acquisition or merger. This paragraph will not be deemed to limit any remedies available in the event of any finding by the Court regarding a violation of this Decree. 25. If any provision(s) of the Decree are found to be unlawful, only such provision(s) will be severed, and the remainder of the Decree will remain in full force and effect. 26. Certifications made by Harris Bank must be made under oath. When this Decree requires the submission by Harris Bank of reports, certifications, notices, or other materials to EEOC, they will be mailed or emailed to: Aaron DeCamp, Trial Attorney, Equal Employment

CCaassee::11::1122--ccvv--0077793 Document##::1147-1FFileiledd::0054/0/225/1/133PPaaggee 1111 ooff 1133 PPaaggeeiIDD ##::4661

Opportunity Commission, 500 West Madison Street, Suite 2000, Chicago, Illinois, 60661. When this Decree requires submission by EEOC of materials to Harris Bank, they will be mailed or emailed to Bruce R. Alper, Vedder Price P.C., 222 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2400, Chicago, IL 60601.
ENTERED AND APPROVED FOR:

For the EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

For BMO HARRIS BANK N.A.

/s/l-ohn C. Hendrickson
JOHN C. HENDRICKSON Regional Attorney

Is/ Bruce Alper
Bruce R. Alper

Is/ Diane I. Smason
DIANE I. SMASON
---- Supervisory Trial Attorney

DATE:

CCaassee:: 11::1122--ccvv--0077793 Docummeenntt##::1147-1FFileiledd::0054/0/225//1133PPaaggee 1122 ooff 1133 PPaaggeeiIDD##::4672

EXHIBIT A RELEASE AGREEMENT I, ________, in consideration for $ _ _ _ _ paid to me by BMO Harris Bank N.A., in connection witb tbe resolution of EEOC v. Harris Bank, Case No. 12 C 7793 (N.D. Ill.), release and waive my right to recover for any claims of disability discrimination arising under the Americans with Disabilities Act and any other claims contained in the underlying EEOC charge I have flled with the EEOC against BMO Harris Bank N.A., its parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, predecessors and successors, prior to the date of this release and all claims that were included in EEOC v. Harris Bank, Case No. 12 C 7793 (N.D. Ill.).

Date: ________

Signature: - - - - - - - - - - -

Address:-----------

CCaassee:: 11::1122--ccvv--007777933 DDooccuummeenntt##::1147-1FFileiledd::0054/0/225/1/133PPaaggee 1133 ooff 1133 PPaaggeeiIDD ##::4683

EXHIBIT B
NOTICE TO ALL BMO HARRIS BANK N.A. EMPLOYEES
This Notice is being posted pursuant to a Consent Decree entered by the federal court in EEOC v. Harris Bank, Case No. 12 C 7793 (N.D. Ill.) resolving a lawsuit flled by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") against BMO Harris Bank N.A.
In its suit, the EEOC alleged that Harris Bank violated the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") by not providing reasonable accommodations to employees on extended medical leaves that would allow them to return to work at Harris Bank. Harris Bank flled an Answer denying the allegations in the Complaint. To resolve the case, Harris Bank and the EEOC have entered into a Consent Decree that provides, among other things, that:
1) Harris Bank will provide compensation to a class of former employees identified by the EEOC;
2) Harris Bank will provide reasonable accommodations to persons desiring to return to work from medical leaves of absence and will not retaliate against employees who have made allegations of disability discrimination or participated in any way in a proceeding involving disability discrimination;
3) Harris Bank has designated employees in Human Resources who will be trained to help facilitate the process of providing reasonable accommodations to Harris Bank's disabled employees; and
4) Harris Bank will provide training to designated Harris Bank human resources and management personnel.
The EEOC enforces the federal laws against discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age or disability. If you believe you have been discriminated against, you may contact the EEOC at (312) 869-8009. The EEOC charges no fees and has employees who speak languages other than English.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
This Notice must remain posted for 2 years from the date below. Any questions about this Notice or compliance with its terms may be directed to: The Harris Bank ADA Settlement, EEOC, 500 West Madison Street, Suite 2000, Chicago, Illinois 60661.

Dated: _ _ _ __

The Honorable Judge Leinenweber

 
 Case: 1:12-cv-7793 As of: 03/22/2018 04:52 PM CDT 1 of 3
COX,TERMED
United States District Court Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.2.1 (Chicago)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:12−cv−07793

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Harris Bank Assigned to: Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber Cause: 42:2003 Job Discrimination
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 09/28/2012 Date Terminated: 05/02/2013 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Aaron R. DeCamp Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 W. Madison Street 2000 Chicago, IL 60661 (312)353−7582 Email: aaron.decamp@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Diane Ilene Smason United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Legal Unit 500 West Madison Street Suite 2000 Chicago, IL 60661 (312) 869−8120 Email: diane.smason@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John C. Hendrickson Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 West Madison Street Suite 2000 Chicago, IL 60661 (312) 869−8099 Email: john.hendrickson@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Harris Bank

represented by Michael G. Cleveland Vedder Price P.C. 222 North LaSalle Street Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 609−7500 Email: mcleveland@vedderprice.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bruce R. Alper Vedder Price P.C. 222 North LaSalle Street Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60601

Case: 1:12-cv-7793 As of: 03/22/2018 04:52 PM CDT 2 of 3
(312) 609−7500 Email: balper@vedderprice.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/28/2012 09/28/2012 09/28/2012 09/28/2012 09/28/2012 10/02/2012 10/03/2012 10/03/2012 10/16/2012
11/28/2012 11/29/2012 02/19/2013 03/06/2013
04/11/2013
04/25/2013
04/25/2013
05/02/2013
05/02/2013 05/02/2013 05/02/2013

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; Jury Demand. (DeCamp, Aaron) (Entered: 09/28/2012)
2 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by Aaron R. DeCamp (DeCamp, Aaron) (Entered: 09/28/2012)
3 CIVIL Cover Sheet (DeCamp, Aaron) (Entered: 09/28/2012)
CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Susan E. Cox. (cft, ) (Entered: 09/28/2012)
4 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by John C. Hendrickson (Hendrickson, John) (Entered: 09/28/2012)
5 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by Diane Ilene Smason (Smason, Diane) (Entered: 10/02/2012)
6 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Harris Bank by Michael G. Cleveland (Cleveland, Michael) (Entered: 10/03/2012)
7 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Harris Bank by Bruce R. Alper (Alper, Bruce) (Entered: 10/03/2012)
8 WAIVER OF SERVICE returned executed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Harris Bank waiver sent on 10/1/2012, answer due 11/30/2012. (DeCamp, Aaron) (Entered: 10/16/2012)
9 ANSWER to Complaint by Harris Bank(Cleveland, Michael) (Entered: 11/28/2012)
10 MINUTE entry before Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber: Status hearing set for 2/20/2013 at 09:00 AM.Mailed notice (wp, ) (Entered: 11/29/2012)
11 MINUTE entry before Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber: Status hearing reset for 3/6/2013 at 09:00 AM.Mailed notice (wp, ) (Entered: 02/19/2013)
12 MINUTE entry before Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber:Status hearing held on 3/6/2013. Status hearing set for 4/11/2013 at 09:00 AM.Mailed notice (wp, ) (Entered: 03/06/2013)
13 MINUTE entry before Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber:Status hearing held on 4/11/2013. Status hearing set for 4/25/2013 at 09:00 AM.Mailed notice (wp, ) (Entered: 04/11/2013)
14 MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to approve consent judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Consent Decree)(Smason, Diane) (Entered: 04/25/2013)
15 NOTICE of Motion by Diane Ilene Smason for presentment of motion to approve consent judgment 14 before Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber on 5/2/2013 at 09:00 AM. (Smason, Diane) (Entered: 04/25/2013)
16 MINUTE entry before Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber: The Joint Motion for Entry of Consent Decree is granted. (For further detail see separate order). Mailed notice. (et, ) (Entered: 05/09/2013)
17 CONSENT DECREE Signed by the Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber on 5/2/2013. (et, ) (Entered: 05/09/2013)
18 EXHIBIT B − Notice to all BMO Harris Bank N.A. Employees Signed by the Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber on 5/2/2013. (et, ) (Entered: 05/17/2013)
***Civil Case Terminated. (wp, ) (Entered: 04/16/2014)

Case: 1:12-cv-7793 As of: 03/22/2018 04:52 PM CDT 3 of 3

10/07/2013 10/17/2013

19 GENERAL ORDER 13−0018 dated 10/7/13: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, effective October 1, 2013, that all civil litigation involving as a party the United States of America, is immediately suspended, postponed and held in abeyance continuing for a period of fourteen (14) days from the date of entry of this General Order (For Further Details See Attached Order). Signed by Chief Judge Castillo. (tlm) (Entered: 10/07/2013)
20 GENERAL ORDER 13−0019 dated 10/17/13: IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, that the stay entered by General Order 13−0018 is hereby lifted, and any and all deadlines in the affected civil litigation (whether established by order, rule, or agreement), including but not limited to any scheduled discovery and pleading dates, are extended by 28 days. The Court warns litigants that this General Order does not purport to affect rights to or deadlines concerning appeal from any decision of this Court. Any litigant affected by this General Order may see relief from the order by motion. Trial dates in the affected cases will stand, although they may need to be adjusted in individual cases to account for the extension of other dates. The Court may, in any particular case, vary the effect or operation of this General Order by a separate ruling. (For Further Details See Attached Order). Signed by the Honorable Chief Judge Ruben Castillo on 10/17/2013.(ym, ) (Entered: 10/18/2013)

 
 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE 5-9-13
BMO Harris Bank to Pay $400,000 to Resolve EEOC Disability Lawsuit
Federal Agency Says Bank's Medical Leave Policy Violated the Americans with Disabilities Act
CHICAGO - BMO Harris Bank will pay $400,000 to a group of 14 form er em ployees under a consent decree entered on May 2, 2013, to resolve a disability discrim ination case brought by the U.S. Equal Em ploym ent Opportunity Com m ission (EEOC).
The EEOC had alleged that BMO Harris Bank unlawfully term inated disabled em ployees at the end of their medical leave of absence rather than offering accommodations which would have allowed them to return to work. EEOC also alleged that the bank failed to provide reasonable accommodations to its disabled employees.
Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability and also requires em ployers to provide reasonable accom m odations-including additional leave and transfers to a different job where appropriate-unless to do so would cause undue hardship.
U.S. District Court Judge Harry Leinenweber of the Northern District of Illinois entered the decree ending the suit, which provides $400,000 in m onetary relief to the victim s. In addition, the decree includes an injunction against disability discrim ination and retaliation, and im poses record keeping and reporting responsibilities on the bank for the term of the decree. The bank will also change its workplace accom m odation policy to allow job transfers as accommodations if employees are unable to return to work at their jobs because of a disability.
"Now that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has m ade clear that arranging for a job transfer m ay be an appropriate reasonable accommodations under the ADA, all employers are well-advised to adjust their policies to reflect this developm ent in the law," said John Hendrickson, the EEOC's regional attorney in Chicago. "We at the EEOC are encouraged that the decree just entered reflects that development. More generally, this decree reflects what em ployers and the EEOC can accom plis h with res pect to ADA com pliance when there is a willingnes s to s it down and talk. There are no losers here, and the public interest has been well served."
The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. Harris Bank , Civil Action No. 12-cv -7793, filed Sept. 28, 2012, in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. In addition to Hendrickson, EEOC trial attorney Aaron DeCam p and supervisory trial attorney Diane Smason litigated the case on behalf of the government.
EEOC's Chicago District Office is responsible for processing charges of discrimination, administrative enforcem ent, and the conduct of agency litigation in Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, and North and South Dakota, with Area Offices in Milwaukee and Minneapolis.
The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws against employment discrimination. Further information is available at www.eeoc.gov.