Skip to content
RDDHI handles employment and labor law cases, including compliance with ADA regulations.

On July 26th, 1990, one of the most transformative pieces of civil rights legislation was passed into law: the Americans with Disabilities Act, otherwise known as the ADA. The ADA was created to prohibit discrimination against individuals with disabilities in all areas of public life, including jobs, schools, transportation, and all other public and private areas opened to the public. Today many of us can see the effects of the ADA just by walking into a building or riding public transportation.

The ADA is divided into five sections to protect individuals with disabilities in different areas of life:

  • Title I: Employment
  • Title II:  Public Services: State and Local Government
  • Title III:  Public Accommodations and Services by Private Entities
  • Title IV: Telecommunications
  • Title V: Miscellaneous Provisions

The ADA does not provide an exhaustive list of conditions that are protected under the act. Some believe the ADA was designed to be incomplete so that it could be expanded and include new disabilities. For example, in July of 2021, President Joe Biden announced that individuals suffering from serious long-term COVID-19 could qualify as disabled under the ADA.

Employers’ Obligations under the ADA

Many ADA lawsuits filed against businesses are based on allegations of discrimination, which include allegations relating to Title I of the ADA. Therefore, it is crucial for employers to understand their rights and obligations under the ADA.

Continue reading How To: ADA Compliance for Employers
The Illinois First District Court of Appeals in Downtown Chicago, where judges dismissed a forum non conveniens motion to transfer. Photo by Vincent Desjardins.

The Appellate Court of Illinois, First Judicial District recently found that the COVID-19 pandemic was a factor that weighed against forum transfer in Bearden v. Conagra Foods, Inc. In this case, 45 plaintiffs brought a total of 39 product liability actions in the circuit court of Cook County against Conagra Foods, Inc., Conagra Brands, Inc., DS Containers, Inc., and Full-Fill Industries, LLC. Conagra Foods and the other defendants involved filed a combined motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens as to the out-of-state plaintiffs and a motion to transfer out of Cook County for the in-state plaintiffs. The circuit court issued a ruling without hearing argument, dismissing the defendants’ motions and issuing its findings.

Interestingly, in addition to weighing the standard private and public interest legal factors, the court also weighed another factor that has had both private and public implications for all of us over the past two and a half years: COVID-19.

While wrangling up all the necessary witnesses that could testify in a case involving numerous out-of-state plaintiffs and corporations with offices and employees across the country might be a factor against a forum in certain cases, here, the circuit court found that because of the COVID-19 pandemic, it was likely that most or all of the witnesses would testify by video and that remote depositions and testimony would likely be used. The court found that the arguments that court dockets would be backlogged and that jury trials might be postponed or delayed were not persuasive because COVID-19 had rendered that the case in every jurisdiction.

The circuit court did find, however, that jury visits to the sites weighed in favor of dismissal or transfer, not specifically because of COVID-19, but one could easily assume that if the court considered COVID-19 in other factors, perhaps having a jury travel to multiple states during a pandemic influenced its decision on that point as well.

COVID-19 as a Factor

On appeal, the defendants argued that the circuit court improperly found that COVID-19 weighed against dismissal or transfer. They argued that including COVID-19 as a factor was an abuse of the circuit court’s discretion. Upon review, the appellate court upheld the circuit court’s ruling in total, including its inclusion of COVID-19 in its list of factors.

The appellate court stated that “a circuit court’s decision is an abuse of discretion when it is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable, or when no reasonable person would take the same view.” Bearden v. Conagra Foods, Inc., 2021 IL App (1st) 210234-U, ¶ 71 (quoting Palacios v. Mlot, 2013 IL App (1st) 121416, ¶ 18. The appellate court found that the circuit court’s consideration of such issues as testifying virtually or by video, packed dockets, and delayed jury trials, were not fanciful, arbitrary, or so unreasonable that no person would ever take the view of the circuit court. In affirming the circuit court’s decision, the appellate court has determined that COVID-19, and more specifically the impacts and related measures taken on and by the legal system, can be a factor considered by Illinois circuit courts in deciding a forum non conveniens issue.

The New Normal During COVID-19

The factors considered by the circuit court in this case are familiar to anyone in the legal profession who has continued to work throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. Zoom and telephonic depositions have become the norm, trial dates have been pushed back multiple times, and pajama pants have become the standard dress code while in webcam meetings (well, the court didn’t explicitly consider that last one, but we all know how important that’s become).

Concerns for Defendants

Forum non conveniens motions are a viable tool for defendants seeking to have cases dismissed, avail themselves of friendlier state or local laws, or a more favorable jury pool. Some of the standard factors weighing in favor of a transfer have been effectively negated by the measures taken by the legal profession to address the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic. Now that courts and law firms have knowledge of these measures, they are not likely to go away anytime soon and could be damaging to a defendant’s motion for forum non conveniens efforts.

With many state legal systems continuing to utilize these COVID-19 measures and now precedent on the books in one of the busiest legal arenas in the country, it is possible that other courts and other states could follow the Illinois circuit court’s lead and explicitly consider COVID-19 in their analysis of forum non conveniens motions. For defendants, this could prove to be a bigger headache than trying to get that one co-counsel to mute their phone during your cross-examination. But hey, at least you don’t have to show the plaintiff how to work the Zoom camera.

RDDHI associate attorney discusses the process for filing a motion for summary judgment in Missouri.

As a first-year associate, the responsibility of drafting your first motion for summary judgment is daunting. Law students are introduced to the basics of the summary judgment standard in their 1L Civil Procedure class, and—depending on what route you took through law school—reacquainted with the standard when preparing for the bar exam.

After three years of school and a summer of studying, any law school graduate can likely rattle off the summary judgment standard without missing a beat. But what I’ve come to learn in actual practice is that understanding the dos and don’ts of drafting the motion is a skill that is learned through careful guidance from senior attorneys, a little bit of patience, and some trial and error. There are key aspects to the motion that first year associates should learn to start looking for, such as knowing the right time to file and the facts you will rely on as the basis for the motion.

Where it all begins though, is understanding the required framework for drafting this motion. In Missouri, knowing the applicable law is critical to learning this framework. And in my short time since I began practicing law, I’ve already seen opposing counsels make the fatal mistake of failing to subscribe to it.

Continue reading Drafting a Summary Judgment Motion in Missouri
The Missouri Supreme Court recently issued an opinion on non-economic damages caps.

The Missouri Supreme Court has issued an opinion that could greatly impact the trajectory of tort law in the state. On July 22nd, 2021, the Court upheld Missouri’s non-economic damages cap for medical negligence claims and further held that it does not violate the Missouri Constitution’s right to trial by jury for the legislature to abolish personal injury causes of action existing in common law and replace by statute the same type of claim with new standards.

In 2015, the Missouri Legislature imposed statutory caps on non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases. Prior to the legislation there were no caps, as such claims were common law actions, and juries had full discretion to award damages.

Last week, in Maria del Carmen Ordinola Velasquez vs. University Physician Associates et al., the Missouri Supreme Court weighed in on the constitutionality of those caps after the Western District Court of Appeals referred the case. The Court affirmed a judgment capping non-economic damages in a medical practice case where the trial court found the plaintiff suffered catastrophic injuries.

The Court held that the legislature does indeed have the power to abolish common law causes of action and supersede them with statutory actions. Judge George W. Draper III dissented, expressing concern for the legislature’s ability to overturn common law causes of action. Draper called the statutory changes “an act of form over substance” that “fails to protect the constitutional right to trial by jury.” Nonetheless, the Missouri Legislature now appears to have increased freedom to institute tort reform in other areas of the law. The Court also reiterated that the cap on non-economic damages should be calculated at the time of trial in comparison to the time of injury. Missouri has set an increasing cap through 2050 for injuries considered non-catastrophic and a higher cap for those considered catastrophic.

While caps on medical damages have been in place for several years in Missouri, the broader impact of this ruling is the affirmation of the Missouri General Assembly’s authority to reform negligence law in the state, raising the possibility of further tort reform in the future.

It is important that medical professionals and healthcare providers have the right attorneys on their side to further mitigate risk and potential damages. Even with non-economic damages caps firmly in place, medical malpractice litigation can still be costly and time consuming.

RDDHI’s Professional Liability and Healthcare Law teams have extensive experience representing professionals and institutions in medical malpractice cases. From developing risk management strategies to crafting a trial defense, Rasmussen Dickey Dioszeghy Henry Ijei has what it takes to protect you in court. Contact us today to learn how we can help you with medical malpractice litigation.

Missouri recently enacted legislation protecting businesses from COVID-19 liability.

As states across the country ease out of COVID-19 restrictions, many state legislatures are passing laws to protect businesses from COVID-19 liability. Various chambers of commerce and pro-business groups across the country have been proponents of such protections and have pushed their state legislatures to pass laws to protect businesses. So far, 30 states have enacted statutes that provide businesses with some type of shield against COVID-19 liability suits. 

On July 7th, 2021, Missouri became the next state to protect businesses, healthcare providers, and manufacturers from COVID-19 liability. Missouri Governor Mike Parson signed Senate Bill 51 into law, protecting businesses, premises owners, and healthcare providers from personal injury suits arising from COVID-19 exposure unless a plaintiff can show clear and convincing evidence that the defendant’s reckless or willful misconduct caused the exposure to the virus.

The Missouri law establishes a rebuttable presumption of risk by a plaintiff in an exposure claim when they enter the premises that has warning signs posted. The law also shields manufacturers from product liability claims stemming from items used to protect against COVID-19 exposures.

The proponents of this bill hope that this law will provide businesses with some type of relief from the pandemic as the potential for COVID-19-related lawsuits looms. The new law will go into effect on August 28th, 2021. As the Missouri Constitution does not allow for legislation to be applied retroactively, the new law will not affect claims filed prior to August 28th.

This law does not completely shield businesses from liability. So, it is extremely important for businesses to have the right counsel to help them comply with federal, state, and local laws in order to be protected.  The attorneys at RDDHI have broad experience in the fields of premises liability, products liability, and more. We can assist your business in maintaining compliance or defending against claims. Contact RDDHI today.

Protect yourself from liability.

RDDHI’s attorneys can help you make sure you’re compliant with state laws and avoid costly COVID-19 lawsuits. And should a claim arise, we’re prepared to defend your business.

Contact RDDHI