U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark Beatty
EAST ST. LOUIS — A Southern Illinois federal judge refused to dismiss a lawsuit in which a man alleged U.S. Steel violated federal disability protection law by using his dyslexia diagnosis to keep him from taking on certain roles at work.
James Norris worked at U.S. Steel’s Granite City facility, where he was a level one employee working to advance to the second level. The dispute with the company originated in February 2021, when Norris asked Process Coordinator Jordan McBride to take him off the checker helper schedule and disclosed his dyslexia.
Employees in the position of checker helper assist in various quality control tasks, including verifying specifications, tracking and integrity of steel products at the mill.
A few weeks later, according to court records, the company sent Norris a formal request for medical information. That May, a licensed clinical psychologist diagnosed Norris with dyslexia and in August 2022 she prepared a letter about his condition and work responsibilities. U.S. Steel then drafted a so-called "Return to Work with Restrictions" form, which indicated Norris should “avoid work involving the precise recording and/or tracking of numbers/letters.”
Norris sued in September 2023, accusing the company of violations of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act and Illinois Human Rights Act.
In March 2026, U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark Beatty denied U.S. Steel’s motion for summary judgment on discrimination and retaliation claims, but granted it on Norris’ failure to accommodate allegations. U.S. Steel moved for reconsideration, a request Beatty denied in an Oct. 19 opinion.
In its motion, U.S. Steel argued Norris’ evidence didn’t adequately create a factual dispute over whether he could do the work level two employees typically managed, while also asserting he didn’t show how he experienced an adverse action or show U.S. Steel acted with pretext.
Beatty revisited his original summary judgment ruling, where he found the evidence on record, including the letter from the clinical psychologist, allowed for the reasonable inference Norris “could perform the essential functions of the” Checker Helper role, which the judge said meant he could also handle other level two positions.
U.S. Steel noted Norris “made a judicial admission in his response brief,” Beatty wrote, in stating the August 2022 letter made no recommendations about other level two jobs. Beatty examined three statements from that brief to assess whether Norris made such admissions. The first two, he said, were an “explanation of a factual denial and a contested fact,” neither of which were “formal, deliberate or unambiguous” such as to remove evidence from the record.
The third, Beatty said, was “a statement of fact” Norris asserted and U.S. Steel accepted, specifically that the psychologist “never made any recommendations regarding the jobs (U.S. Steel) excluded (Norris) from performing, besides the Checker Helper job.” That was indeed a judicial admission, Beatty said, but that doesn’t change his “conclusion regarding what inferences a jury could draw regarding (Norris’) ability to perform all essential functions associated with other” second-level positions.
Beatty quoted the 2022 letter in which the doctor said she didn’t “see any reason (Norris) would be unable to complete necessary tasks for work,” such as reading and transcribing numbers, then making sure the digits on the steel match those found on paperwork. The letter further stated Norris “should not be barred from advancing in his career based on this diagnosis as it is not a hindrance to his occupation.”
Not only was the inference reasonable, Beatty continued, but since U.S. Steel was moving for summary judgment he was obligated to make the inference most favorable to Norris. Beatty further rejected the company’s arguments that the letter’s recommendations were conditional or that he misread the text. Any accommodations, he said, were explicitly stated as being “meant to ease his (Norris’) ability to complete tasks in a timely manner at work and in no way suggest he is unable to do his job successfully.”
As to whether Norris suffered an adverse action, Beatty agreed the union contract allowed Norris to reject positions but didn’t let U.S. Steel impose plantwide restrictions. He said his original ruling “relied on several pieces of evidence, including” no prior job performance counseling for Norris; that broad restrictions continued after the August 2022 letter; and U.S. Steel’s “consistent argument that (Norris’) restrictions are specifically due to his dyslexia.”
Finally, Beatty reiterated his determination of a factual dispute about whether U.S. Steel had any legitimate or nondiscriminatory reason for the restrictions it put on Norris. He said the August 2022 letter should’ve let the company know it could no longer rely on the psychologist’s earlier report.
The case could proceed to a jury trial on Nov. 16.
Norris is represented in the case by attorneys Melvin D. Kennedy, of the Law Office of Melvin D. Kennedy; and Cyrus Dashtaki, of the Dashtaki Law Firm, both of St. Louis.
U.S. Steel is represented by attorneys Adam D. Hirtz and Harry L. Benson, of the firm of Jackson Lewis, of St. Louis.
