Kevin McCormick v. Chicago Transit Authority

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denies the Chicago Transit Authority's motion for judgment as a matter of law after a jury found that it violated Title VII by terminating Kevin McCormick after he refused COVID-19 vaccination based on religious beliefs. The court grants a new trial, concluding that the jury instruction omitted the burden-shifting language applicable to a mixed-motive theory and that the omission prejudiced the CTA. The court also reserves consideration of the admissibility of testimony from the CTA's expert for a pretrial hearing.

Holdings

1. Judgment as a matter of law was not warranted because a reasonable jury could find that McCormick's refusal to receive the COVID-19 vaccine was a religious action and that this action was a motivating factor in, or the but-for cause of, his termination.
2. The verdict was not against the manifest weight of the evidence because the evidence permitted the jury to find that McCormick's religiously based noncompliance with the vaccination policy motivated the CTA's termination decision.
3. The CTA was not entitled to a new trial based on counsel's misconduct because the CTA did not demonstrate sufficient prejudice.
4. The jury instruction was erroneous because it stated that liability could follow from a motivating factor but omitted the employer's burden to prove that it would have made the same decision regardless of the plaintiff's protected characteristic.
5. The court did not finally determine the admissibility issue in the order but directed that the admissibility of Dr. Roberts's testimony be addressed at a pretrial hearing before the new trial.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the CTA was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because no rational jury could find that McCormick's religion was a motivating factor in his termination.
2. Whether the jury's verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
3. Whether alleged misconduct by McCormick's counsel prejudiced the CTA sufficiently to require a new trial.
4. Whether the jury instruction on motivating-factor causation inadequately stated Seventh Circuit law by omitting the employer's mixed-motive burden-shifting defense.
5. Whether limiting the CTA expert's testimony concerning COVID-19, CDC and OSHA guidance, and the purposes of the vaccination policy required a new trial.

Disposition

other