Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—S.D. Ill.: Summary judgment in EEOC sexual harassment and disability case against Illinois nursing facility denied, (May 7, 2026)

By Wendy Biddle, J.D.

Genuine issues of material facts were present in all claims, making summary judgment inappropriate.

A federal district court in Illinois denied a motion for summary judgment filed by Helia Healthcare of Salem, LLC, in an employment discrimination case brought by the EEOC. The court found genuine disputes of material fact on all four claims brought by the Commission on behalf of a former nurse—who alleged she was fired after requesting leave for an ankle injury—including for sexual harassment, retaliation, failure to accommodate, and constructive discharge (EEOC v.Helia Healthcare of Salem, LLC dba Doctors Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, No. 3:24-cv-02152-DWD (S.D. Ill. May 6, 2026)).

The plaintiff, a nurse, began working for Helia Healthcare at its skilled nursing facility in Salem, Illinois, in July 2018. The incidents giving rise to this lawsuit occurred over approximately eight months of employment, beginning in February 2019.

Alleged harassment. According to the undisputed facts, the nurse's direct supervisor walked behind her while she was distributing medications to a patient and slapped her on the buttocks. The nurse reported this incident the following day to another employee, who told her the matter would be relayed to the facility administrator and would be "taken care of."

Approximately one month later, in early March 2019, the nurse’s same supervisor attempted to kiss her while she was in his office. When the nurse pushed him away, the supervisor responded by saying "what your husband doesn't know won't hurt him." The nurse immediately reported this second incident to the same employee as before, who again stated that the facility administrator would be informed.

Between these two incidents, the nurse alleged that her supervisor confronted her and accused her of being unable to keep her mouth shut. Shortly thereafter, the supervisor cut the nurse's hours.

Leave request. Following the attempted kiss, the nurse requested FMLA leave on March 12, 2019, to undergo surgery for an ankle injury she had sustained at a previous job. The nurse testified that she had disclosed this injury and the possibility of needing time off for surgery during her job interview with the facility. The facility denied the nurse's FMLA request because she had not worked there long enough to qualify for such leave.

Early departure. The facility’s employees told the nurse she would need to resign and reapply after her surgery if she wanted time off for the procedure. The nurse refused to resign but was upset by this response. She went to the administrator's office and told her about the incidents with her supervisor, then left her shift early and asked another nurse to cover her patients.

Banned. The facility administrator characterized the nurse's departure as quitting or "firing herself" by walking off the job mid-shift. The next day, the administrator called the nurse and told her she was banned from the facility due to the allegations she made against her supervisor. The administrator later testified that she made this statement because the nurse had abandoned her shift and was allegedly coaching the patient who had witnessed the supervisor slapping her.

The EEOC, on behalf of the nurse, brought suit against the nursing facility for sexual harassment in violation of Title VII; retaliation in violation of Title VII; failure to accommodate under the ADA; and constructive discharge under the ADA. The nursing facility moved for summary judgment on all claims.

Sexual harassment claim. Addressing the sexual harassment claim under Title VII, the court explained that such claims require proof that the work environment was objectively and subjectively offensive, the harassment was gender-based, it was severe or pervasive enough to alter employment conditions and create a hostile environment, and there is a basis for employer liability. Only the third element—severity or pervasiveness—was contested by the nursing facility.

The facility relied on Szany v. Garcia, a 2020 Northern District of Indiana case that found a single buttocks slap by a coworker of equal rank over many years insufficient to establish a hostile work environment. The facility argued the incidents in this case were similarly insufficient.

The court rejected this argument as misplaced, finding the conduct distinguishable on multiple grounds. The nurse complained of two separate incidents occurring within a short timeframe. More significantly, the alleged conduct was done by the nurse's direct supervisor, a factor the Supreme Court has recognized as magnifying the severity of harassing conduct.

The court concluded that a reasonable factfinder could interpret the supervisor's conduct as "sufficiently invasive, humiliating, and threatening to poison [the nurse's] working environment." The court referenced Hostetler v. Quality Dining, 218 F.3d 798 (7th Cir. 2000) where the Seventh Circuit reversed summary judgment on a sexual harassment claim involving two forcible kiss attempts, characterizing such conduct as physical, intimate, and forcible in character rather than casual contact between friendly coworkers.

Retaliation claim. On the retaliation claim, the court identified genuine disputes of material fact regarding both the reduction in the nurse's hours and her termination. While the supervisor testified he was unaware of the nurse's complaints until her last day, and the other employee could not recall whether she informed anyone about the slapping incident before her hours were cut, the nurse testified that her supervisor accused her of being unable to keep her mouth shut before reducing her hours. The court found this evidence sufficient for a jury to infer retaliatory motive.

Regarding the termination, the facility argued that the nurse quit by abandoning her shift, while the EEOC pointed to the facility administrator's statement banning the nurse from the premises "due to the allegations you made against [your supervisor]" as clear evidence of a retaliatory discharge. The court determined these competing narratives presented factual disputes requiring jury resolution rather than judicial determination at summary judgment.

Failure to accommodate under the ADA. The court found the EEOC easily cleared the threshold for establishing that the nurse had a disability under the ADA. Despite the nurse's testimony that her ankle injury did not restrict her ability to work or make daily activities difficult, she also testified to experiencing pain while walking and difficulty squatting and lifting. Medical records attached to the EEOC's response detailed pain and difficulty with major life activities including walking and squatting.

The court emphasized the low bar for establishing disability under the ADA, noting that Congress intended the standard not to demand extensive analysis. The court found that the nurse's disclosure during her job interview that she would need surgery and time off demonstrated she knew the injury was serious enough to limit her work availability. This evidence could lead a reasonable factfinder to conclude the nurse's impairment substantially limited a major life activity or that a record of such impairment existed.

The court noted that the nursing facility did not challenge whether it was aware of the disability or whether it failed to reasonably accommodate it, allowing this claim to survive summary judgment.

Constructive discharge claim. The EEOC brought this claim as an alternative theory in case a jury found that the nurse quit rather than was terminated. The court explained that constructive discharge occurs when an employer acts in a manner communicating to a reasonable employee that she will be terminated, and the employee resigns as a result. The plaintiff must show working conditions had become intolerable; meaning the employer's actions communicated that termination was immediate and unavoidable.

The EEOC argued that if the nurse quit by leaving mid-shift, she did so only because the facility failed to accommodate her disability by denying FMLA leave and telling her the only option was to resign and reapply after surgery. The court found this sufficient to create a factual dispute, noting a reasonable juror could find the nurse's surgery could not wait for FMLA eligibility and therefore conclude she saw her termination as imminent. The court also noted that evidence relating to the harassment and retaliation claims could provide additional context for assessing whether the nurse's working conditions were intolerable.

The court therefore denied the facility's motion for summary judgment on all claims after finding genuine disputes of material fact that must be resolved by a jury.

The case is No. 3:24-cv-02152-DWD.

Judge: Dugan, D.

Attorneys: Elizabeth B. Banaszak for the EEOC. Jeffrey R. Rosenberg (IFMK Law) for Helia Healthcare of Salem, LLC.

Companies: Helia Healthcare of Salem, LLC; Doctors Nursing and Rehabilitation Center

Cases: SexualHarassment DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination Retaliation Discharge IllinoisNews