By: Derek Hawkins//August 27, 2019//
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Case Name: Mark Richardson v. Chicago Transit Authority
Case No.: 17-3508; 18-2199
Officials: John Robert Blakey, Judge.
Focus: Order Correcting Opinion
The opinion issued in the above-entitled case on June 12, 2019, is hereby amended as follows: On Page 7, line 23, the last sentence of the paragraph, which states, EEOC regulations interpreting the ADA are entitled to deference under Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., unless they are “arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute.” 467 U.S. 837, 844 (1984); see Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 130 F.3d 893, 899 n.3 (10th Cir. 1997) is amended to read, We view EEOC regulations interpreting the ADA’s definitions as “instructive guidance.” Steffen v. Donahoe, 680 F.3d 738, 743 n.3 (7th Cir. 2012); see also Waldrip v. Gen. Elec. Co., 325 F.3d 652, 655 n.1 (5th Cir. 2003) (EEOC regulations interpreting 42 U.S.C. § 12102 are “persuasive authority”).
Additionally, on Page 12, line 20, the last sentence of the paragraph, which states, While EEOC interpretive guidance is “not entitled to full Chevron deference,” it does “reflect a body of experience and informed judgment to which courts and litigants may properly resort for guidance” and is therefore “entitled to a measure of respect under the less deferential Skidmore [v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944)] standard.” Fed. Express Corp. v. Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389, 399 (2008) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see Gile v. United Airlines, Inc., 95 F.3d 492, 497 (7th Cir. 1996). shall be removed.