Kimberly Ballard v. Ameren Illinois Company

── Kimberly Ballard v. Ameren Illinois Company ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Date: April 28, 2026 Category: General In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-1562 KIMBERLY BALLARD Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMEREN ILLINOIS COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois. No. 1:24-cv-01185 — Jonathan E. Hawley, Judge. ____________________ ARGUED FEBRUARY 17, 2026 — DECIDED APRIL 28, 2026 ____________________ Before BRENNAN, Chief Judge, and RIPPLE and TAIBLESON, Circuit Judges. TAIBLESON, Circuit Judge. Kimberly Ballard worked at Ameren Illinois Company until February of 2018, when she was fired—in Ballard’s view, because of her physical disabil- ity. Ballard pursued relief through the Illinois Department of Human Rights (“IDHR”), filing a Complainant Information Sheet (“CIS”) in August of 2018 that described the discrimina- tion and retaliation she allegedly suffered. The IDHR took 2 No. 25-1562 about two years to complete its intake and investigative pro- cess, after which Ballard received a “right to sue” letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). Ballard did sue, claiming that Ameren violated the Amer- icans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., by discriminating and retaliating against her on the basis of her disability. The district court dismissed her suit, conclud- ing that Ballard had not satisfied the statutory requirement to file a “charge” of employment discrimination within 300 days of the alleged incident because her CIS did not constitute a “charge” for purposes of the ADA. The district judge did not consider whether equitable tolling of the 300-day clock was warranted. We vacate and remand. Under our precedent, the district judge correctly concluded that Ballard’s CIS was not a “charge.” But we remand for the court to consider Ballard’s equitable tolling argument, which has some support in the currently incomplete record. I. Background Ballard began working for Ameren as an energy efficiency advisor in 2013. In February of 2015, while attending a work- related conference, Ballard fell and injured her wrist. She later underwent surgeries to address the injury and requested re- lated work accommodations. In the years following her in- jury, Ballard alleges that Ameren repeatedly discriminated and retaliated against her on the basis of her disability, includ- ing by issuing her negative performance reviews, passing her No. 25-1562 3 over for promotion, and ultimately terminating her on Febru- ary 26, 2018. 1 On August 23, 2018—178 days after her termination—Bal- lard submitted a CIS to the IDHR. That form required Ballard to name the company “that [she] believe[d] discriminated against [her] in Illinois,” and to describe “the issues and bases [she was] requesting IDHR to investigate.” Ballard accord- ingly named Ameren and its involved employees, and she de- scribed Ameren’s awareness of her disability and the adverse employment consequences that she allegedly suffered. In the months that followed, Ballard exchanged multiple emails with IDHR staff. Those are described in more detail below; here, it suffices to note that the IDHR confirmed it had received Ballard’s CIS and was working on the matter. After several rounds of back and forth between Ballard and the IDHR, the agency finalized her formal charge of discrimina- tion on September 5, 2019—556 days after her termination. That document contained, in substance, the same allegations and factual details that were in the CIS. The IDHR ultimately dismissed Ballard’s case for lack