As of January 1, 2025, Illinois now protects employees who provide family care from discrimination in the workplace. The law means that employees who have “family responsibilities” cannot be discriminated against because of said responsibilities. The law defines family responsibilities as “an employee’s actual or perceived provision of personal care to a family member.” Covered family members include an employee’s child, stepchild, spouse, domestic partner, sibling, parent, mother-in-law, father-in-law, grandchild, grandparent, or stepparent. Examples of “personal care” could include, but is not limited to, taking a family member to the doctor, supporting their medical, hygiene, nutritional, or safety needs, and providing support to a family member suffering from a serious health condition.

This means that employees with family responsibilities are now protected from discrimination, harassment, and protection from retaliation if they allege discrimination on the basis of family responsibilities. 

The attorneys are Kennedy Hunt P.C. are experts in employment rights. You can read about the employment law cases we take on here. If you or someone you know has had their disability rights violated, the skilled attorneys at Kennedy Hunt, P.C. may be able to help you. Fill out a questionnaire so we can understand your claim. 

The post Illinois Legislature Expands Workers Rights with New Changes to Employment Law appeared first on Kennedy Hunt, P.C..

According to the AP, the memo says the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission will drop any complaints based on ‘disparate impact liability.’ Disparate impact is discrimination that occurs when a neutral or fair-seeming policy still harms a protected group, even without the intent to discriminate. 

There are many employment discrimination cases emerging because of the growing use of artificial intelligence in hiring, where the disparate impact concept can be applied.

The EEOC’s decision is in line with a previous executive order from President Trump to use the disparate impact concept less in civil rights enforcement because, in the president’s eyes, it creates an undue burden on businesses. But the decision threatens workers’ abilities to seek justice when they experience discrimination in the workplace. 

These cases are still viable, however, regardless of the Trump Administration’s stance against them. The attorneys at Kennedy Hunt P.C. are experts in employment and disability rights. You can read about the employment law cases we take on here. If you or someone you know has had their disability rights violated, the skilled attorneys at Kennedy Hunt, P.C. may be able to help you. Fill out a questionnaire so we can understand your claim. 

The post News: Civil Rights Agency Loses Tool to Investigate Workplace Discrimination appeared first on Kennedy Hunt, P.C..

The story of our client, Suellen Klossner, is included in this piece from The New Yorker.

“On September 8th, [Kennedy Hunt P.C. together with Iowa Legal Aid] filed a lawsuit against Impact, charging it with violating the Fair Housing Act by discriminating against a disabled sixty-year-old Table Mound resident named Suellen Klossner. According to the suit, Impact tried to compel Klossner to sign a lease with illegal provisions, such as one that said that, if any rule in the lease was breached, Impact could evict residents after giving just three days’ written notice. Impact had also increased Klossner’s rent and utility charges by about eighty-seven per cent since buying the park. (Impact denies all the allegations in the suit.)”

Ms. Klossner has lived in the Table Mound Mobile Home Park since 2009. Though she owns her 1977 Trail-A-Rod double-wide manufactured home, Klossner rents her lot at Table Mound. As mentioned in The New Yorker, Klossner is a person with disabilities. In 1993, the Social Security Administration determined that Ms. Klossner was unable to work due to a combination of her impairments. Therefore, Ms. Klossner’s income is from public assistance payments. 

When Ms. Klossner moved to Table Mound in 2009, her monthly rent was $235.00. From 2009 to 2017, her rent incrementally increased to $280.00, at a rate of approximately two percent per year. 

But in June 2017, IADU Table Mound MHP, LLC purchased Table Mound. As The New Yorker article outlines, when investment firms purchase mobile home parks, rent prices tend to rise, and fast. 

From June 2017 to September 1, 2019, Klossner’s lot rent went from $280.00 to $380.00 per month. IADU Table Mound MHP, LLC also started charging Klossner for services she had not paid for in the past, including water and sewer usage and trash pick-up. 

As The New Yorker detailed, IADU Table Mound MHP, LLC created illegal lease agreements. In 2017, Klossner signed a lease with illegal provisions, including that “a tenant’s right to occupancy shall be terminated on thirty days’ written notice of non-renewal or three days’ written notice for a breach of any provision of the lease.” 

In 2019, IADU Table Mound MHP, LLC. again ordered Klossner to sign a lease with illegal provisions. In response, Klossner sent a letter asking for clarification about the illegal provisions, which was never answered. In June 2019, Klossner did not sign said lease agreement. Klossner was again asked to sign a lease that included illegal provisions in February 2020. After legal counsel intervened, the defendant’s counsel claimed the lease with illegal provisions was sent by mistake. A new one was sent shortly thereafter and Klossner signed it.  

Meanwhile, as her rent prices continued to rise, amounting to more than 50% of her income, Klossner sought out help. In February 2020, Klossner obtained rental assistance from St. Vincent De Paul Society. Additionally, in January 2020, Klossner was approved for a Housing Choice voucher. This federal voucher program provides rental insurance to ensure that very low-income families, persons with disabilities, and seniors secure decent housing.  

Immediately upon receiving approval for the Housing Choice voucher, Klossner asked the Property Manager if IADU Table Mound MHP, LLC would accept it. Though Klossner is disabled and qualifies for the voucher, her request from IADU Table Mound MHP, LLC was denied. 

On February 20, 2020, Ms. Klossner’s counsel sent Defendant’s counsel a letter asking if they would accept Ms. Klossner’s housing choice voucher. IADU Table Mound MHP, LLC denied the request. 

On March 17, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Governor of Iowa placed a moratorium on most evictions until May 27, 2020. Additionally, due to pandemic, the Defense Health Agency extended the use of its Housing Choice voucher program. With this in mind, Klossner, through counsel,  again requested reasonable accommodation, which IADU Table Mound MHP, LLC again denied. 

This case is ongoing. For further information, please contact attorney Thomas E. Kennedy  at (314) 872-9041 or tkennedy@kennedyhuntlaw.com. If you or someone you know has been a victim of housing discrimination, our skilled attorneys at Kennedy Hunt, P.C. may be able to help you. Fill out a questionnaire so we can understand your claim. 

The post Kennedy Hunt P.C.’s joint housing discrimination lawsuit with Iowa’s Legal Aid highlighted in The New Yorker appeared first on Kennedy Hunt, P.C..

The revision also requires the passenger to provide documentation of the animal’s certification, as well as of their own disability(ies). It’s worth noting that only dogs are considered support animals under this change, leaving all other animals restricted from traveling with their owners’ on planes as support animals. 

What’s more, emotional support animals are now considered as pets under the revision. If brought on a plane, the passenger would have to pay pet travel fees. In the past, emotional support animals were allowed on planes and not charged fees. 

The Americans with Disabilities Act does not consider emotional support animals as service animals. Similar to the Air Carrier Access Act revisions, the ADA defines a service animal as “a dog that has been individually trained to do work or perform tasks for an individual with a disability.” Under the ADA, emotional support animals do not fall under the service animal category and thus the ADA does not provide a right to an emotional support animal. 

Notably, though, the Fair Housing Act and certain state laws do provide rights to an emotional support animal. For example, the Illinois Human Rights Act in Housing protects the right to an emotional support animal. But the Missouri Human Rights Act does not. Though housing and transportation certainly are different, the discrepancies between the federal and state agencies may prove the lack of widespread understanding of the value and necessity of emotional support animals. 

Curt Decker, executive director of the National Disability Rights Network, spoke with NPR about the harm these new regulations pose to travelers. 

“Now people who do feel they need this kind of support and cannot afford [to pay the pet fee] will now be eliminated from flying,” Decker said. 

The new Air Carrier Access Act rules went into effect at the beginning of 2021. 

If you or someone you know has been a victim of unfair treatment related to a support animal, our skilled attorneys at Kennedy Hunt, P.C. may be able to help you. Fill out a questionnaire so we can understand your claim. 

The post Department of Transportation Bans Emotional Support Animals appeared first on Kennedy Hunt, P.C..

The lawsuit alleges that the city of Springfield, Illinois unlawfully discriminated against Plaintiff, Individual Advocacy Group, who provides in-home services for our clients, a group of disabled adults. The city discriminated against those adults by imposing an ordinance preventing them from living 600 ft. within another group home and failing to grant an accommodation for a conditional use permit to allow them to stay in the home. By denying such a reasonable accommodation, the city’s actions constituted a violation of the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

After oral argument on July 13, 2017, Judge Richard Mills issued a preliminary injunction preventing the city from enforcing the ordinance and evicting the individuals who live inside the home. If evicted, these individuals could face institutionalization. The city immediately appealed.

Judge Joel Flaum determined that our clients’ request for the accommodation was reasonable under the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. A failure to grant such an accommodation is a violation of those laws. This opinion affirms Judge Richard Mills’ decision, and found that the preliminary injunction is proper. This decision ensures our clients will not face the threat of eviction and institutionalization during pendency of the litigation. The opinion can be read here.

The post Favorable Ruling in the 7th Circuit appeared first on Kennedy Hunt, P.C..