Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—N.D. Ill.: Nuclear power facility employee prevails against motions to dismiss in discrimination case, (May 2, 2025)

By Ursula Furi-Perry, J.D., MBA

The employer’s purported conduct—including punitive treatment based on her mental health history—could dissuade a reasonable employee from exercising protected rights.

An employee of nuclear power facility may proceed with her suit alleging a series of discriminatory and retaliatory acts related to her mental health conditions. An Illinois federal court declined to grant the employer’s motions to dismiss, holding first that nothing in the plaintiff’s complaint required the court to make a prohibited second fitness determination or to assess a government-issued security clearance. Regarding the merits of the claims, the court held that the employer’s purported conduct—including threats of termination, denial of worksite access, coerced disclosure of confidential medical notes, and punitive treatment based on her mental health history—could dissuade a reasonable employee from exercising protected rights, satisfying the plausibility standard at the pleading stage (Summerland v. Constellation Energy Generation, LLC, No. 24 C 6390 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 30, 2025)).

Lawsuit. The plaintiff filed suit against her employer, Constellation Energy Generation, LLC, alleging a series of discriminatory and retaliatory acts related to her mental health conditions. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, was the second such action brought by the plaintiff; in the prior case, the parties stipulated to dismiss the case pursuant to settlement, after some of the plaintiff’s claims survived the defendants’ motions to dismiss.

Clerical role. The plaintiff had worked in a clerical role at the Dresden Generating Station, a nuclear power facility, since 2011. She has a long-standing history of anxiety, depression, and other mental health challenges, for which she has received therapy and medication. As a result of her conditions, the plaintiff had required intermittent use of leave under the FMLA.

NRC regs. The regulations of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) require an operator of a nuclear power reactor to implement a “fitness for duty” (FFD) program, to ensure employees are “trustworthy and reliable,” which includes considerations of mental or physical impairment, substance abuse, and fatigue or alertness. The employer’s FFD program is overseen in part by a medical review officer practicing through an outside provider, also added as defendants in the suit.

Alleged retaliation. The plaintiff alleged that defendants retaliated against her for requesting accommodations and asserting her legal rights. Following a traumatic event—the unexpected death of her son in June 2022—the plaintiff’s mental health deteriorated, prompting additional leave and monitoring. The employer demanded sensitive medical process notes from the plaintiff’s psychiatric nurse practitioner, despite her protests that the information was confidential. She ultimately complied, fearing job loss. The defendants used these notes to question her fitness for duty and allegedly mischaracterized her mental health history, including references to alcohol use and noncompliance with treatment, which the plaintiff disputed. The defendants also allegedly insisted on medication changes and required the plaintiff to undergo multiple evaluations, some by internal staff and others by external psychiatrists. Even after she was cleared by several professionals, the defendants allegedly continued to resist her return to work unless specific demands were met, including cessation of Xanax usage.

The plaintiff claimed that these actions amounted to violations of the FMLA, the ADA, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), and the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act (GIPA), along with common-law intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, and civil conspiracy. The defendants moved to dismiss.

Barred by NRC regulation? The defendants argued that the case should be dismissed, as federal law governing the operation of a nuclear power plant precluded the court’s consideration of the plaintiff’s claims—specifically, they argued, the claims are barred by the NRC regulation at 10 C.F.R.§26.189(d), which states that, once an FFD determination has been made as to a particular individual, “[n]either the individual nor licensees [i.e., employers who operate nuclear facilities] and other entities may seek a second determination of fitness” for duty.

The court rejected the defendants’ arguments. These provisions, the court held, do not apply to judicial proceedings, and nothing in the plaintiff’s complaint required the court to make a prohibited second fitness determination or to assess a government-issued security clearance. The court reaffirmed its reasoning from the first lawsuit brought by the plaintiff, aligning with precedent that judicial review of employment discrimination claims remains permissible even in highly regulated contexts such as nuclear energy.

Adverse employment actions. Next, the federal district court addressed the merits of the plaintiff’s substantive statutory claims, and held that she plausibly alleged adverse employment actions under the FMLA, ADA, GINA, and GIPA. These included threats of termination, denial of worksite access, coerced disclosure of confidential medical notes, and punitive treatment based on her mental health history. Such conduct, the court stated, could dissuade a reasonable employee from exercising protected rights, satisfying the plausibility standard at the pleading stage.

Employer? The court also addressed whether the medical review officer and provider qualified as “employers.” While they may not ultimately meet the definition under all statutes, the court held that this determination was premature. Under the broader definitions used by the FMLA and potentially GIPA, and given the medical review officer’s apparent authority to block the plaintiff’s return to work, the complaint sufficiently alleged their functional control over her employment.

Common-law claims. Finally, the court ruled that the plaintiff had sufficiently pleaded common-law claims. Her intentional infliction of emotional distress claim alleged targeted, extreme conduct by defendants who allegedly knew of her mental health vulnerabilities. Her invasion of privacy claim—based on coerced release of highly personal therapy notes—was allowed to proceed, as the court was unwilling to rule out liability where disclosure may have been compelled. The civil conspiracy claim also survived, supported by plausible allegations of coordinated action among the defendants to undermine her employment.

The case is No. 24 C 6390.

Judge: Alonso, J.

Attorneys: Edward Arthur Voci (Law Offices of Edward A. Voci) for Betty J. Summerland. Jose Jorge Behar for Constellation Energy Generation LLC. Kenneth A. Jenero (Holland & Knight) for Barbara Pohlman.

Companies: Constellation Energy Generation LLC

Cases: Discrimination DisabilityDiscrimination EmployeeLeave Retaliation Discharge IllinoisNews