Skip to main content

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Cummins Power Generation Inc.

D. Minn.September 28, 2015No. Case No. 14-cv-3408 (SRN/SER)Cited 12 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Nelson
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
motion to dismiss

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

DiscriminationRetaliationFailure to Accommodate

Outcome

The Court granted the EEOC and Habighorst's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, rejecting Cummins' defense that Cigna and Dr. Pearson were indispensable parties. The Court found Cummins, as the employer, is liable for the alleged ADA and GINA violations regardless of the role third parties played in drafting the challenged forms.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened** The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and an employee named Habighorst sued Cummins Power Generation Inc. for workplace discrimination and retaliation. The case involved violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), which appeared to stem from problematic forms used in the workplace. Cummins tried to defend itself by arguing that third parties—specifically Cigna (likely an insurance company) and Dr. Pearson—were responsible for creating the problematic forms, not the company itself. **What the Court Decided** The court sided with the EEOC and the employee, rejecting Cummins' defense. The judge ruled that even if outside parties like Cigna and Dr. Pearson helped create the forms, Cummins as the employer was still legally responsible for any ADA and GINA violations that resulted from using those forms. **Why This Matters for Workers** This ruling reinforces that employers cannot shift blame to insurance companies, doctors, or other third parties when discrimination occurs in the workplace. Companies remain fully accountable for ensuring their workplace practices comply with disability and genetic discrimination laws, regardless of who helps develop their policies or procedures.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.