University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name EEOC v. C.R. ENGLAND EE-UT-0003
Docket / Court 2:06-cv-00811-BSJ ( D. Utah )
State/Territory Utah
Case Type(s) Disability Rights-Pub. Accom.
Equal Employment
Attorney Organization EEOC
Case Summary
In August 2003, a former driver for C.R. England filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging that C.R. England discriminated and retaliated against him because of his HIV-positive status. The EEOC issued a determination regarding his complaint in September 2004 ... read more >
In August 2003, a former driver for C.R. England filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging that C.R. England discriminated and retaliated against him because of his HIV-positive status. The EEOC issued a determination regarding his complaint in September 2004, concluding that C.R. England had violated the driver's rights under the ADA. On September 27, 2006, the EEOC filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, asserting that C.R. England had violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by (1) "[d]isclosing and requiring [the driver] to disclose medical information concerning his disability, in writing, to driver trainees before they could be trained by [him]"; and (2) "[u]nlawfully limiting, segregating and/or classifying [the driver] on the basis of his disability." On March 3, 2007, the individual driver intervened in this action, alleging multiple ADA violations—including discrimination, failure to provide reasonable accommodation, and retaliation—as well as several tort claims under Utah state law—including intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and invasion of privacy.

In March 2008, the EEOC moved for partial summary judgment on the issues of (1) whether the driver was a "qualified individual with a disability" protected by the provisions of the ADA; and (2) whether C.R. England was liable for violating the ADA by limiting, segregating, or classifying the driver on account of his disability. On that same day, C.R. England filed two motions for summary judgment—one against EEOC and one against the named plaintiff. In its motion regarding the EEOC's claims, C.R. England argued that (1) the driver "was an independent contractor, not an employee [of C.R. England], rendering the [ADA] inapplicable"; (2) "even if [the driver] is deemed an employee, EEOC's ADA claims fail because it cannot establish that [he] is 'disabled' or that England took any adverse action against him because of any alleged disability"; and (3) "any purported unlawful disclosure claim is legally insufficient." In its motion regarding the driver's claims, the company argued that (1) he was not an "employee" of C.R. England; (2) that his ADA claims fail because he was not "disabled," and could not establish that C.R. England "took any adverse action against him because of any disability, or . . . retaliated against him"; and (3) that "his three state law claims are legally insufficient." The court subsequently sealed all of these documents.

On September 17, 2009 Judge Bruce S. Jenkins held, in a sealed opinion, that triable issues of fact existed regarding (1) whether the driver was an independent contractor, as opposed to an employee of C.R. England, and (2) whether he had a cognizable "disability" under the ADA. But the district court held that C.R. England "ha[d] shown that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to each of the plaintiffs' claims, and th[at] EEOC ha[d] failed to show such entitlement as to the issues raised by its motion for partial summary judgment." Accordingly, the court granted summary judgment in C.R. England's favor on all claims.

The named plaintiff and the EEOC filed appeals. The briefs of both sides in both appeals were subsequently sealed by the court. On May 3, 2011 Judge Jerome A. Holmes of the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued a single opinion for both appeals, upholding the district court decision, and finding that the plaintiffs had not stated a viable claim under the ADA, and that the district court had committed no error in granting summary judgment in favor of C.R. England.

The case is closed.

Caitlin Howitt - 08/16/2011
Richa Bijlani - 11/07/2019


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Defendant-type
Transportation
Discrimination-area
Accommodation / Leave
Discharge / Constructive Discharge / Layoff
Other Conditions of Employment (including assignment, transfer, hours, working conditions, etc)
Training
Discrimination-basis
Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)
EEOC-centric
Direct Suit on Merits
Private Party intervened in EEOC suit
General
Disparate Treatment
Reasonable Accommodations
Medical/Mental Health
HIV/AIDS
Plaintiff Type
EEOC Plaintiff
Private Plaintiff
Causes of Action Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.
Defendant(s) C.R. England
Plaintiff Description Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, on behalf of one or more workers.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations EEOC
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Filed Pro Se No
Prevailing Party Defendant
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief None
Source of Relief None
Filing Year 2006
Case Closing Year 2011
Case Ongoing No
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
  See this case at CourtListener.com (May provide additional documents and, for active cases, real-time alerts)
  Discouraging Voluntary Disclosure: EEOC v. C.R. England and Confidentiality Under the ADA
Bringham Young University
Date: 2012
By: Jessica Jones (Brigham Young University Law Review)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

Docket(s)
09-4207 (U.S. Court of Appeals)
EE-UT-0003-9001.pdf | Detail
Date: 06/27/2011
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
09-4217 (U.S. Court of Appeals)
EE-UT-0003-9002.pdf | Detail
Date: 06/27/2011
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
2:06-cv-00811-BSJ (D. Utah)
EE-UT-0003-9000.pdf | Detail
Date: 06/29/2011
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint
EE-UT-0003-0001.pdf | Detail
Date: 09/27/2006
Complaint in Intervention
EE-UT-0003-0002.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/26/2007
Plaintiff EEOC's Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment Against Plaintiff EEOC [ECF# 78]
EE-UT-0003-0004.pdf | Detail
Date: 05/19/2008
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Opinion (10th Cir.) [Ct. of App. ECF# 01018633302] (644 F.3d 1028)
EE-UT-0003-0003.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 05/03/2011
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
show all people docs
Judges Ebel, David M. (Tenth Circuit) show/hide docs
EE-UT-0003-0003
Holmes, Jerome A. (Tenth Circuit) show/hide docs
EE-UT-0003-0003
Kelly, Paul Joseph Jr. (Tenth Circuit) show/hide docs
EE-UT-0003-0003
Plaintiff's Lawyers Meyer, Valerie L. (Arizona) show/hide docs
EE-UT-0003-0004
O'Neill, Mary Jo (Arizona) show/hide docs
EE-UT-0003-0004
Shanley, Sally C. (Arizona) show/hide docs
EE-UT-0003-0004

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -