University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name EEOC v. Sharp Manufacturing Company of America EE-TN-0103
Docket / Court 2:06-cv-02611-JDB-dkv ( W.D. Tenn. )
State/Territory Tennessee
Case Type(s) Disability Rights-Pub. Accom.
Equal Employment
Special Collection EEOC Study -- in sample
Attorney Organization EEOC
Case Summary
On September 16, 2006, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) brought this lawsuit against Sharp Manufacturing Company in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. The complaint alleged that Sharp violated the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) by failing to ... read more >
On September 16, 2006, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) brought this lawsuit against Sharp Manufacturing Company in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. The complaint alleged that Sharp violated the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) by failing to provide the complainant with reasonable accommodation and then discharging her because of her disability. The EEOC sought injunctive and monetary relief against the defendant. Judge Daniel Breen was assigned to this case, but the case was later reassigned to Judge Thomas Anderson on May 21, 2008.

On February 1, 2008, the court granted in part and denied in part Sharp's motion for summary judgment. Sharp contended that first, the EEOC could not produce sufficient evidence that the former employee had a disability. Second, Sharp claimed that the former employee was not a qualified individual with a disability who could be reasonably accommodated. The court considered whether the former employee’s osteoarthritis, which limited her ability to stand for long periods of time, fell under the ADA as a protected disability. The opinion stated that the court found that the case should proceed on the issue of the former employee’s physical limitations to stand. 534 F. Supp. 2d 797

The defendant went on to argue that the former employee was not a protected individual under the ADA because she would not have been able to work even with reasonable accommodations. In response, the EEOC explained that the former employee’s health condition had deteriorated, but at the time of the discharge, she could have worked with reasonable accommodation. The court found the EEOC’s argument compelling and stated that a jury could reasonably find that the former employee’s condition got worse only after she left the defendant company. In addition, the court found an issue of fact regarding whether or not Sharp could have offered the former employee reasonable accommodations. Id.

The court granted the defendant’s motion in part in regard to the plaintiff’s ADA claim that the former employee was substantially limited in her ability to walk because the proposed accommodation related only to the inability to stand. In addition, the court granted the defendant’s motion in part on the grounds that the former employee was not otherwise qualified to be a casual employee as a reasonable accommodation, but the question remained whether other available accommodations were reasonable. Id.

The parties met with a mediator on September 23, 2008.

On November, 25, 2008, the parties notified the court that they had reached a settlement. The parties agreed to monetary terms of the settlement but were still in the process of finalizing a consent decree. On January 22, 2009, the court approved the parties’ consent decree. The consent decree gave the court jurisdiction of one year to ensure compliance. This decree instructed the defendant to: refrain from unlawful employment discrimination and retaliation; report regularly to the EEOC to ensure compliance with Title VII; revise its policies on reasonable accommodations; post notices of this agreement in their offices; and pay $30,000.00 to the plaintiff.

The docket shows no further activity, and the duration of the consent decree has lapsed. Therefore, the case is now closed.

Daisy Manning - 06/06/2008
Sean Whetstone - 06/19/2018
Raul Noguera-McElroy - 03/03/2019
Richa Bijlani - 11/24/2019

compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Content of Injunction
Develop anti-discrimination policy
Discrimination Prohibition
Implement complaint/dispute resolution process
Other requirements regarding hiring, promotion, retention
Post/Distribute Notice of Rights / EE Law
Reasonable Accommodation
Retaliation Prohibition
Mobility impairment
Accommodation / Leave
Discharge / Constructive Discharge / Layoff
Other Conditions of Employment (including assignment, transfer, hours, working conditions, etc)
Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)
Direct Suit on Merits
Disparate Treatment
Reasonable Accommodations
Plaintiff Type
EEOC Plaintiff
Causes of Action Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.
Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e
Defendant(s) Sharp Manufacturing Company of America
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 outcome Not sought
Filed Pro Se No
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Damages
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Settlement
Form of Settlement Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration 2009 - 2010
Filed 09/16/2006
Case Closing Year 2010
Case Ongoing No
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
  See this case at (May provide additional documents and, for active cases, real-time alerts)
Court Docket(s)
W.D. Tenn.
EE-TN-0103-9000.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
W.D. Tenn.
Complaint [ECF# 1-1]
EE-TN-0103-0001.pdf | Detail
W.D. Tenn.
Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF# 33] (534 F.Supp.2d 797)
EE-TN-0103-0002.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
W.D. Tenn.
Consent Decree [ECF# 48]
EE-TN-0103-0003.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
show all people docs
Judges Anderson, Stanley Thomas (W.D. Tenn.) show/hide docs
EE-TN-0103-0003 | EE-TN-0103-9000
Vescovo, Diane K. (W.D. Tenn.) [Magistrate] show/hide docs
Plaintiff's Lawyers Beck, Terry (Tennessee) show/hide docs
Cooper, Ronald S. (Tennessee) show/hide docs
EE-TN-0103-0003 | EE-TN-0103-9000
Dills, Steven W. (Tennessee) show/hide docs
EE-TN-0103-0003 | EE-TN-0103-9000
Lee, James (Tennessee) show/hide docs
EE-TN-0103-0003 | EE-TN-0103-9000
Reams, Gwendolyn Young (Tennessee) show/hide docs
EE-TN-0103-0003 | EE-TN-0103-9000
Smith, Deidre (Tennessee) show/hide docs
EE-TN-0103-0003 | EE-TN-0103-9000
Williams, Faye A. (Tennessee) show/hide docs
EE-TN-0103-0003 | EE-TN-0103-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Bowling, W. Kerby II (Tennessee) show/hide docs
Cavagnaro, Charles W. Jr. (Tennessee) show/hide docs
EE-TN-0103-0003 | EE-TN-0103-9000
Crout, Joseph M. (Tennessee) show/hide docs
EE-TN-0103-0003 | EE-TN-0103-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -