University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name EEOC v. MAGNETEK, INC. EE-WI-0026
Docket / Court 2:02-cv-00920-RTR ( E.D. Wis. )
State/Territory Wisconsin
Case Type(s) Disability Rights-Pub. Accom.
Equal Employment
Special Collection EEOC Study -- in sample
Attorney Organization EEOC
Case Summary
The Milwaukee office of the EEOC brought this action in the United States District Court for the Eastern of Wisconsin, against Magnetek Inc. d/b/a Drives & Systems. The complaint, filed in September 2002, alleged disability discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. ... read more >
The Milwaukee office of the EEOC brought this action in the United States District Court for the Eastern of Wisconsin, against Magnetek Inc. d/b/a Drives & Systems. The complaint, filed in September 2002, alleged disability discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Specifically, the charging party alleged that Defendant regarded her as having a disability (carpel tunnel syndrome) and this belief motivated its employment decisions. In October 2002 the charging party intervened.

In November 2003, Defendant moved for summary judgment, and, after some discovery, the motion was granted in September 2004 on the grounds that even if the facts relied on upon by the EEOC were considered, the EEOC would not have presented enough evidence upon which a jury could reasonably infer that the Defendant had regarded the charging party as disabled.

Kevin Wilemon - 06/05/2007


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Discrimination-basis
Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)
EEOC-centric
Direct Suit on Merits
Private Party intervened in EEOC suit
General
Disparate Treatment
Plaintiff Type
EEOC Plaintiff
Private Plaintiff
Causes of Action Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. ยงยง 12111 et seq.
Defendant(s) MagneTek Inc., Drives and Systems
Plaintiff Description Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, on behalf of one or more workers.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations EEOC
Class action status sought Unknown
Class action status granted Unknown
Prevailing Party Defendant
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief None
Source of Relief None
Form of Settlement None on record
Order Duration not on record
Case Closing Year 2004
Case Ongoing No
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
Case Studies Megacases, Diversity, and the Elusive Goal of Workplace Reform
Written: Mar. 01, 2008
By: Nancy Levit (University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law)
Citation: 49 B.C. L. Rev. 367 (2008)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Second Generation Employment Discrimination: A Structural Approach
By: Susan Sturm (Columbia Law School)
Citation: 101 Colum. L. Rev. 458 (2001)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

Docket(s)
2:02-cv-00920-RTR (E.D. Wis.) 10/17/2005
EE-WI-0026-9000 PDF | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Decision and Order 12/27/2004 (E.D. Wis.)
EE-WI-0026-0001 PDF | Detail
Notice of Appeal 02/23/2005
EE-WI-0026-0002 PDF | Detail
Judges None on record
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers None on record
Defendant's Lawyers None on record
Other Lawyers None on record

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -