Seventh Circuit Revives ADA Suit in Employment Law Clinic Victory

Students in the Law School’s Employment Law Clinic helped secure a significant appellate victory this spring when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit revived a disability discrimination lawsuit brought by former Ameren Illinois employee Kimberly Ballard.

In a published opinion issued April 28, the Seventh Circuit vacated a federal district court ruling that had dismissed Ballard’s claims as untimely and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court held that while Ballard’s filing with the Illinois Department of Human Rights did not formally qualify as a federal “charge” under existing precedent, the district court should consider whether equitable tolling applies because of potentially misleading communications from the agency.

The appeal was handled by three students under the supervision of Clinical Professor of Law Randall D. Schmidt, faculty director of the clinic. The student team consisted of Milo Last-Yuen, ’26, Anna Pohl, ’26, and Alexandra Schwartz, ’27.

“We worked on this case through the entire appeal process,” said Last-Yuen. “This included speaking with our client, conducting legal research, and drafting and editing briefs. I was also particularly honored to be able to present the oral argument myself in front of the court.”

Ballard alleged that after suffering a wrist injury at a work conference and undergoing multiple surgeries, she faced discrimination and retaliation from her employer, including denied accommodations, negative performance reviews, and eventual termination. Federal law generally requires ADA discrimination claims to be filed within 300 days. After her termination, Ballard submitted paperwork to the Illinois Department of Human Rights within 178 days and remained in contact with the agency as it processed her case.

"I ... had the opportunity to participate in the appellate process in real time, and in this case especially, I learned about the significance of procedural rules and deadlines." Anna Pohl, ’26

The Seventh Circuit noted that IDHR staff repeatedly indicated that her filing had been received and that no further action was required from her at the time, circumstances the court said could support equitable tolling of the filing deadline. The district court dismissed the case after concluding that Ballard had failed to file a formal discrimination charge within the ADA’s required 300-day period.

But the Seventh Circuit concluded that the district court should examine whether the filing deadline should be equitably tolled because of what the appellate court described as “confusing communications” from the IDHR.

The case gave the students firsthand experience with federal appellate litigation and client-centered advocacy.

Pohl said she worked with the team on drafting and editing the appellate brief, conducting legal research, and helping prepare for oral argument.

“On a broad scale, I gained practice in legal research and writing, and I am deeply grateful for the guidance provided by our clinical advisors,” Pohl said. “I also had the opportunity to participate in the appellate process in real time, and in this case especially, I learned about the significance of procedural rules and deadlines.”

She added that the experience reinforced for her that effective advocacy requires more than mastering legal doctrine.

“Client representation extends beyond thoroughly researching legal doctrine,” Pohl said. “While that foundation is vital, effective advocacy also depends on presenting complex legal arguments in a clear, comprehensive, and strategic manner while always centering the client’s interests at the heart of the work.”

“I improved my legal research and writing and my oral argument skills and got a better idea of how to look for different types of arguments and legal holes in cases,” Alexandra Schwartz, ’27

Schwartz, who joined the clinic this year, focused primarily on preparing the team for oral argument, including updating research, drafting arguments, and participating in moot court sessions.

“I improved my legal research and writing and my oral argument skills and got a better idea of how to look for different types of arguments and legal holes in cases,” she said.

Last-Yuen said that arguing before the Seventh Circuit was a defining moment of his legal education. “I am sure it will remain a career highlight for years to come,” he added.

“I am sure it will remain a career highlight for years to come."
Milo Last-Yuen, ’26

Schwartz said she hopes the case will lead to improvements in the administrative processes for future complainants navigating discrimination claims.

Pohl agreed, noting, “The impact on our client — and the potential to help future plaintiffs — remains central.”