Phillips et al v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc

On September 27, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois decided cross-motions for summary judgment in Phillips et al v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. Megan Phillips, a seamstress with post-traumatic stress disorder and anxiety, requested to bring her service dog to work as a reasonable accommodation. Hobby Lobby refused, failed to engage in an interactive process, and terminated her. The EEOC joined her suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The court held Hobby Lobby violated the ADA by denying a reasonable accommodation and failing to participate in an interactive process, granting partial summary judgment for the plaintiffs on liability but denying punitive damages.

The court granted in part and denied in part the cross-motions for summary judgment. It found Hobby Lobby liable for failing to accommodate Phillips and for not engaging in the interactive process, but ruled that the employer’s conduct did not warrant punitive damages.

Whether Hobby Lobby failed to provide a reasonable accommodation and engage in the interactive process in violation of the ADA, and whether its conduct justified punitive damages.

The case underscored the importance of the interactive process under the ADA and clarified that employers must carefully consider service animals as reasonable accommodations. It served as a significant precedent for disability rights enforcement by the EEOC and heightened employer awareness regarding mental health accommodations in the workplace.