In Their Opinion : Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Commentary : Lawyer & Attorney Michael E. Rigney : Kelley Drye & Warren Law Firm

GRATZL v. OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUDGES (April 7, 2010)

Jeanne Gratzl has suffered from incontinence for several years. It has interfered with her ability to perform certain jobs and undertake normal commutes. All seemed well when she was hired by DuPage County for a “control room” court reporting position. Unlike most court reporting positions that require attendance at trials and in courtrooms, her position allowed her to manage her condition well. In fact, she managed it so well that her colleagues and superiors were not aware of it. In 2006, all that changed. The Chief Judge of DuPage County redefined the position of a court reporter – and required all court reporters to do the same job. That meant that all court reporters had to rotate through the control room and the courtrooms. Gratzl disclosed her condition to the Chief Judge. The parties engaged in a series of conversations attempting to reach an accommodation. The only accommodation Gratzl would accept was a full-time assignment to the control room. The Chief Judge offered several accommodations; including no trial assignments, assignments to courtrooms nearest the restrooms, and allowing her to use a hand signal to indicate to a presiding judge that she needed a break. When she rejected these accommodations, the County terminated her employment. Gratzl brought suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. The district court granted summary judgment to the County on the ground that Gratzl was not disabled. Gratzl appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Manion, and Williams affirmed. The Court noted the similar requirements of both the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. A plaintiff must show that she is a qualified individual, with a disability, of which the defendant is aware, and for which the defendant failed to reasonably accommodate. Although the Court briefly addressed whether Gratzl had a disability, which was the basis of the district court's ruling, it ultimately decided it did not have to resolve that issue. Instead, it addressed whether Gratzl was a "qualified individual," meaning whether she was able to perform the essential functions of the job with or without reasonable accommodations. The Court focused on the employer's legitimate description of the functions of the job. Here, that included rotating through the control room and the courtrooms. The fact that Gratzl was able to perform the functions of her prior job was not the issue. The County eliminated that job for legitimate reasons. It is not required to maintain a job, for which an employee is qualified, that it no longer believes is necessary or appropriate. Since Gratzl basically concedes that she cannot perform the job as it is now defined, she is not a “qualified individual.” As an alternative ground, the Court concluded that the accommodations offered by the County were reasonable under the ADA. Her only real objection to the accommodations was that the disruption to the courtrooms necessitated by her frequent breaks would be an embarrassment to her. She is not entitled to reject a reasonable accommodation for that reason.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

BUDDE v. KANE COUNTY FOREST PRESERVE (March 4, 2010)

Charles Budde enjoyed several glasses of wine at the Moose Lodge one night. He decided to drive home anyway and caused an accident that sent two people to the hospital. His blood-alcohol level at the time was nearly three times the legal limit. Budde was also the police chief for the Kane County Forest Preserve District. The district fired him, giving three reasons: errors in judgment, an inability to perform his duties, and engaging in below-standard conduct. Budde sued the District, alleging his termination violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendant, concluding both that he could not recover because he was terminated for misconduct, not a disability, and that he was not a "qualified individual with a disability" because he violated a District rule. Budde appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Manion, and Tinder affirmed. One of the prerequisites for an ADA claim, noted the Court, is that the plaintiff can perform the "essential functions" of his job. The Court concluded that Budde could not meet that prerequisite for two reasons: he violated a workplace rule and he was unable to operate a motor vehicle. With respect to the former, the Court found sufficient evidence that Budde violated the rules that prohibited public intoxication and prohibited the violation of public laws. The Court noted that the District need not wait for the outcome of any criminal charges. With respect to the latter, the Court rejected Budde’s distinction between the ability to operate a motor vehicle and the ability to operate a motor vehicle legally (i.e., in possession of a valid drivers license). The essential function of the job is the ability to operate a motor vehicle legally -- which Budde is unable to do.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

TURNER v. THE SALOON (February 8, 2010)

Paul Turner was a waiter at The Saloon restaurant. After working there for several years, Turner and one of his supervisors carried on a sexual relationship that lasted for about nine months. According to Turner, the supervisor retaliated against him after she ended the relationship. He alleges that she changed his table assignments, disciplined him without cause, and sexually harassed him on a number of specific occasions. Turner also alleges that he was discriminated against because of his psoriasis. He wears no underwear as a result of that condition and therefore occasionally exposes himself while changing clothes. He claims that his supervisors failed to accommodate his condition. Instead, he was forced to change in a “vile” men’s room. One day, in the middle of a shift and with no other waiters on duty, Turner left the restaurant to run an errand. When he returned, he was fired. Turner sued the restaurant and several managers for gender and disability discrimination under Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act. He also made a claim for overtime. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants. Turner appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Manion, Rovner, and Sykes reversed and remanded in part in affirmed in part. The Court first addressed the Title VII sexual harassment claim. It concluded that the district court erred in not considering most of the alleged acts of harassment because they occurred outside the limitations period. Under the Supreme Court's decision in Morgan, whether an alleged act of harassment is considered by a court depends on whether the claim is for employment discrimination or for hostile work environment. In an employment discrimination claim, discrete acts outside the limitations period should not be considered. However, in a hostile work environment claim, all acts can be considered as long as one act contributing to the hostile environment took place during the limitations period. Taking all the alleged acts into account, the Court had little difficulty in finding that they were sufficient to survive summary judgment. The Court noted the presence of at least five discrete acts, three of which were aggressively physical. Since the district court did not reach the issue of employer liability, the Court left the issue for remand. The court next addressed Turner's claim that his termination was in retaliation for his complaints about the harassment. The Court concluded that Turner was unable to establish a prima facie case under either the direct or indirect method. It noted a series of at least ten serious reprimands in the eight or nine months preceding his termination as well as the fact that he left his job in the middle of the shift. The serious performance problems as well as the passage of time since his harassment complaint belie a causal connection between the complaint and his termination. The Court summarily rejected Turner's ADA discrimination claim -- his psoriasis is not a disability under the Act since it does not limit any major life activity. The fact that he is not disabled does not preclude his ADA retaliation claim. Since he did raise such a claim with his employer, his employer is not allowed to retaliate. He does not prevail on that claim, however, for the same reasons he could not prevail on his Title VII retaliation claim. Finally, the Court rejected Turner's wage claims as wholly unsupported by the evidence presented.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

SERWATKA v. ROCKWELL AUTOMATION, INC. (January 15, 2010)

Kathleen Serwatka was an employee of Rockwell Automation. Upon her discharge, she brought suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). She alleged that she was discharged because her employer considered her to be disabled. At trial, the jury indicated its belief on a special verdict form that a) Rockwell terminated Serwatka because it believed her to be disabled and b) that Rockwell would have fired her anyway. Treating the verdict as a mixed-motive finding, the court awarded no damages but did grant declaratory and injunctive relief and awarded attorneys fees. Rockwell appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Rovner, Evans, and Van Bokkelen vacated and remanded. The Court began its analysis with the Supreme Court's decision in Price Waterhouse. In that case, the Supreme Court held the an employer could violate Title VII even if an improper motive was not the only motive for a termination decision. It also held, however, that an employer would escape liability if it could prove that it would have made the same decision in the absence of the improper motive. Courts applied that Title VII decision to other anti-discrimination statutes. A few years later, Congress codified the Price Waterhouse holding that an improper motive need not be the only motive for a plaintiff to recover. It provided limited remedies, not an absence of liability, in the situation where the employer proves that it would have made the same decision in the absence of the improper motive. Specifically, it allowed for declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and attorneys fees. The ADA incorporates by reference the mixed-motive remedy provisions of Title VII. It was on this basis that the district court fashioned its relief. While the case was on appeal, however, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Gross. In Gross, the Supreme Court held, notwithstanding Price Waterhouse, that mixed-motive claims were not allowed under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The Supreme Court concluded that Congress' decision to specifically incorporate the Price Waterhouse approach into Title VII and not to incorporate it into ADEA indicated its intent not to authorize mixed-motive claims under that statute. The "because of" language of the statute therefore required "but for" causation. Like ADEA, the ADA does not include an expressed mixed-motive provision and it uses the same "because of" language. The Court therefore concluded that an ADA plaintiff must establish that the employer would not have fired her absent the improper motive. The special verdict form below indicates that Serwatka failed to do so. The Court vacated and remanded with instructions to enter judgment in Rockwell's favor.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

BUTLER v. ROUND LAKE POLICE DEPARTMENT (October 27, 2009)

Patrick Butler was a sergeant on the police force of a small community north of Chicago. Beginning in 2003, Butler's health began to deteriorate rapidly. He experienced fatigue, night blindness and trouble breathing. In May of 2004, he was diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. After a short time off, his physician permitted him to return to the force on "light duty." Because of the size of the force and the number of sergeants, no light duty assignment was available. The village advised Butler that he could return to work only when he had clearance to work any possible assignment. Shortly thereafter, Butler applied for a disability pension. He testified at his pension hearing that his physical condition prevented him from performing the required duties of his job. Three physicians also completed certificates of disability for Butler. The pension board found him disabled and awarded him disability benefits. He then brought suit against the village under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The district court granted summary judgment to Round Lake.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Manion and Evans affirmed. In order to succeed on an ADA claim, the Court stated that one must show that he can "perform the essential functions" of his job. Under the doctrine of judicial estoppel, a party cannot prevail in one proceeding and then deny the very ground on which he prevailed in a subsequent proceeding. Here, Butler's sworn testimony that his physical condition prevented him from performing his job would appear to negate an element of his ADA claim. Although the Court noted that a disability pension claim (based on one's inability to perform one's job) and an ADA claim (based on one's ability, at least with accommodation, to perform one's job) are not necessarily mutually exclusive, they do require a satisfactory explanation of their consistency. For example, the passage of time or a change in one's disability can render seemingly inconsistent positions consistent. Here, however, Butler offered no explanation -- his ADA claim must fail.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

BRUNKER v. SCHWAN'S HOME SERVICE (October 22, 2009)

Frank Brunker was employed as a Route Manager for Schwan's Home Service, a home-delivery food service company. Brunker sold and delivered the company's products to its customers. Beginning in early 2003, Brunker began experiencing shaking, dizziness, headaches, etc. -- later to be diagnosed as multiple sclerosis. On his doctor's advice, he took two months disability leave, returned to light duty for one month, and then returned to unrestricted work. Several months later, he decided to take some time off for additional tests and evaluation. Around that time, he was disciplined on several occasions for failure to run a route, failure to adhere to a dress code, and writing a check with insufficient funds. When Brunker returned with his diagnosis of multiple sclerosis, the company fired him for unsatisfactory performance, but backdated his termination to the day before he left. Brunker brought suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The court granted summary judgment to Schwan's. Brunker appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Cudahy, Flaum and Rovner affirmed in part, vacated and reversed in part and remanded. On the merits, the Court first addressed the issue of whether Brunker created a genuine issue of fact as to whether he was "disabled." Under the ADA, one is "disabled" if one has an impairment which substantially limits a major life activity -- or if one is regarded as having such an impairment. The Court agreed with the district court that Brunker failed to show a substantial limitation on a major life activity -- the evidence showed only an intermittent or occasional impairment. However, the Court concluded that the evidence, including the discipline and the backdating of his termination, was sufficient to show that Schwan's regarded Brunker as disabled. Thus, the Court remanded the discrimination claim for additional proceedings. The dismissal of the failure to accommodate claim, however, was affirmed by the Court. The Court found no issue of fact with respect to Schwan's offering of an accommodation. The Court also resolved numerous discovery and sanction disputes.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

EKSTRAND v. SCHOOL DISTRICT OF SOMERSET (October 6, 2009)

Renae Ekstrand had been teaching successfully at Somerset Elementary School for several years when the school reassigned her to an interior classroom without natural light. Ekstrand had a disorder which limited her ability to function in an artificial light environment. She told the principal of her condition. She repeatedly requested a transfer to a room with natural light, two of which were available. The school addressed some of her concerns but refused to change her room assignment. Her condition deteriorated to the point where she had to seek medical attention and took a medical leave of absence. She continued to request a room reassignment during her leave. Ultimately, she left the school and brought an action pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The district court granted summary judgment to Somerset. Ekstrand appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Bauer and Evans (concurring) reversed in part and affirmed in part. On the failure to accommodate claim, the Court stated that Ekstrand had to provide evidence that she had a disability, that the school was aware of the disability and that the school failed to reasonably accommodate her. The Court found evidence in the record that she was disabled and that the school was aware of her disability. The principal issue on appeal was whether the school accommodated her disability. The Court noted that a request for accommodation requires significant communication between the parties, particularly when the disability is a mental one. The Court found that the school did reasonably accommodate Ekstrand's disability in the early stages of their communication. During that time, Ekstrand identified a number of conditions in her classroom that exacerbated her depression but never provided direct evidence of the necessity of natural light. However, the court did find a time in November when Ekstrand's psychologist identified natural light as a key to her improvement. Once it was so advised, the Court concluded that the school could have given Ekstrand a room with natural light at a reasonable cost. The Court therefore disagreed with the lower court's finding that no reasonable jury could find in Ekstrand's favor. On the constructive discharge claim, the Court agreed with the district court that Ekstrand failed to show that her working conditions were so intolerable that her resignation was an appropriate response.

Judge Evans concurred in the judgment but wrote separately. He expressed his doubt whether Ekstrand could demonstrate that she was a "qualified individual" under the ADA given her condition and the fact that she was a first grade teacher. He suggested that the district court address that issue on remand.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

COFFMAN v. INDIANAPOLIS FIRE DEPARTMENT (August 20, 2009)

Tonya Coffman worked as a firefighter in Indianapolis for a few years without incident. In 2003, however, several of her coworkers began to express concern about her ability to drive safely because of her height (she is less than 5 feet tall). The department conducted a series of safety evaluations, which she passed. The concerns continued -- another round of evaluations followed. Her coworkers’ concerns expanded beyond safe driving into issues concerning her mood and interactions with others. Eventually, the department recommended a fitness-for-duty evaluation and a transfer to limited-duty status. The evaluation resulted in an individual therapy referral and more fitness evaluations. After one of those evaluations, she was approved for light duty and eventually returned to full active duty. Coffman sued the department and several individuals under Title VII. She alleged that the driving tests and fitness evaluations were gender discrimination and harassment. She also brought a claim alleging that the medical examinations violated the ADA. The district court granted summary judgment against Coffman on all claims. Coffman appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Posner and Rovner affirmed. The Court first addressed her Title VII claim under the direct method of proof. Coffman asserted that the record established a "convincing mosaic" of evidence from which a jury could conclude that she was the victim of gender discrimination. To the contrary, the Court found an absence of any evidence in the record that the driving evaluations, the fitness evaluations or her reassignments occurred, even in part, because of her gender. Her failure to do so illustrates the correctness of the district court summary judgment ruling. On her hostile work environment claim, the court concluded that the conduct of the department did not amount to degrading or hostile behavior. In fact, the Court noted that much of the conduct she complains of was accompanied by offers of support and guidance. In addition, as with the discrimination claim, Coffman failed to create a causal link between the alleged hostile behavior and her gender. With respect to the ADA claim, the Court noted that the statute prohibits a covered employer from requiring a medical examination unless it is shown to be job related and a business necessity. Based on the special work environment of a fire department and its responsibility to the public at large, as well as the fact that the department experienced two suicides in the preceding months, the Court concluded that the examinations were consistent with the requirements of the statute.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

CASNA v. CITY OF LOVES PARK (July 24, 2009)

From 1996 through 2003, Mary Casna worked for the City of Loves Park in two different positions. Though she had a serious hearing impairment, it did not interfere with her performance. In her second job, Casna and one of her superiors did not enjoy a good working relationship. The City transferred her to a temporary police clerk position for six months in order to evaluate her performance in a less volatile atmosphere. Casna's hearing impairment became an issue. In one particular episode, Casna explained to her supervisor, Kay Elliot, that she had not heard her make a request. Elliot snapped: "How can you work if you cannot hear?" Casna accused Elliot of being discriminatory. Elliot consulted with her supervisor and prepared a written performance evaluation, even though Casna was only two months into the job. At the police chief's request, and based on the negative evaluation, the Mayor fired Casna. Casna brought suit against the City, the Mayor and the Police Chief. She alleged that she was fired in retaliation for her complaints of discrimination. She also alleged that the City violated Due Process by discharging her without a hearing. The district court granted summary judgment to defendants. Casna appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Manion, Rovner and Sykes reversed and remanded. On the due process claim, the Court stated that Casna must establish a property interest that is guaranteed by the Constitution but found in Illinois law. Relying on Illinois’ civil service statute, the Court concluded that her first position was exempt but that her second job was not exempt (although the resolution appointing her said it was). Although the Court agreed that a temporary position (her third job) is normally exempt, the Court also concluded that the City could not transfer Casna out of a protected job into an unprotected job and then fire her without process. The Court also rejected the City’s reliance on the requirement that a protected employee obtain her job through the civil service process. Since it was the City that wrongfully tried to make the second position exempt, the Court held that it was estopped from relying on that requirement. Casna is entitled to prove her damages, if any, arising from the lack of process. The Court also reversed the lower court on the retaliation claim. It concluded that Casna’s single statement to Elliot complaining of discrimination, though informal, was sufficient to amount to “protected activity.” Finally, although the Court cautioned that suspicious timing is rarely enough to establish a triable issue on causation, it concluded that it did here, where the police chief recommended her termination the day after the protected activity.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

BODENSTAB v. COUNTY OF COOK (June 22, 2009)

Dr. Philip Bodenstab was an anesthesiologist at Cook County Hospital from 1993 until 2002. In February of 2002, Bodenstab, recently diagnosed with cancer, had a telephone conversation with a friend during which he threatened to kill his supervisor and co-workers. The friend contacted theFBI and Chicago police. The FBI and police contacted the director of the hospital and told him that the threats were credible. The hospital suspended Bodenstab with pay. Over the next several months, Bodenstab went through a series of assessments, evaluations and treatments. After his discharge from treatment and evaluation by the hospital's own psychiatrist, the hospital conducted a pre-disciplinary hearing on the major infraction of threatening to kill coworkers. The hearing officer concluded that the infraction warranted discharge. The hospital fired him. Bodenstab brought an action against Cook County and several individuals seeking to overturn the administrative decision and bringing affirmative allegations that his discharge violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, the First Amendment and due process. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants. Bodenstab appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Flaum and Manion affirmed. The Court rejected each of Bodenstab's arguments in turn. The ADA disparate treatment claim failed because Bodenstab presented no evidence challenging the sincerity of the hospital's belief that he threatened to harm his co-workers. Even if they were mistaken, the Court held that Bodenstab could not show pretext if they reasonably believed the threats. The ADA failure to accommodate claim failed because there is no obligation to accommodate conduct -- and conduct was the reason Bodenstab was fired. The First Amendment claim failed for the same reason the ADA disparate treatment claim failed. Bodenstab was fired because he threatened to kill coworkers -- not because of his speech -- and Bodenstab introduced no evidence otherwise. The Court next rejected Bodenstab's common-law certiorari claim to review the administrative decision on the merits. That claim presents the question of whether the record contains any evidence which fairly tends to support the findings -- it does. Finally, the Court concluded that Bodenstab was afforded adequate notice and a pre-termination hearing that complied with the mandates of due process.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

WINSLEY v. COOK COUNTY (April 22, 2009)

Marsalette Winsley, an African-American woman, worked for the Cook County Department of Public Health. In December 2003, she was a Family Case Manager, which required her to drive to her clients' homes. In early 2004, she was injured in a car accident. After a leave of absence, she was approved to return to work part-time, conditioned on minimal driving. For more than three years, the County attempted to accommodate her limitations, assigning and reassigning her to different tasks at different locations. Winsley took several more leaves of absence during that time. Her supervisors evaluated her poorly during those years for her problems with attendance and timeliness. Eventually, in May of 2007, Winsley's supervisor asked for improvement in her timeliness and absenteeism rates. Winsley quit her job without notice and never returned. She filed an action alleging that the County violated the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and Title VII and engaged in retaliation. The district court granted summary judgment to the County on all counts. Winsley appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Ripple and Wood affirmed. The Court stated that the ADA requires that the claimant have a disability - defined as "a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities." Although the statute does not contain a definition of "major life activity," an EEOC regulation does. The Court noted that driving, Winsley’s only potential impairment, is neither on the list nor does it share much in common with the items on the list (e.g., walking, seeing, hearing, breathing, etc.). The Court therefore concluded that driving did not qualify as a major life activity. The Court recognized that Winsley's inability to drive could impair a different major life activity (e.g., working), but concluded that she did not meet her burden of establishing a genuine issue of material fact on that claim. Therefore, her ADA claim failed. With respect to her Title VII claim, the Court concluded that she failed to meet her burden for several reasons: a) her only direct proof were her own bare assertions, b) she was unable to identify a similarly situated employee, and c) she was unable to rebut the County’s evidence that she was not meeting its legitimate expectations. Finally, with respect to her retaliation claim, the Court concluded that her evidence fell far short of the "hostile and abusive working environment" standard.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

LLOYD v. SWIFTY TRANSPORTATION (January 9, 2009)

Gerald Lloyd is a truck driver. Unfortunately, Lloyd lost much of his left leg in a motorcycle accident. Fortunately, he adapted fairly well to a prosthetic leg. He does experience some difficulties with the lining and develops occasional infections. He was able to get a limb waiver from the State of Indiana to return to his career as a truck driver. Swifty Transportation (“Swifty”) hired Lloyd as a night-shift driver in June 2008. Swifty delivers gasoline in its fleet of twelve trucks. Each truck has one lead driver on the day shift and two night-shift drivers. The lead drivers are generally paid more and have some additional responsibilities. In 2001, Swifty filled a lead-driver position without interviewing Lloyd, even though Lloyd had expressed his interest in the job. Lloyd filed an EEOC charge, alleging that Swifty denied him the job because of his disability. Swifty and Lloyd resolved the charge. Lloyd agreed not to bring suit. Swifty agreed to notify and interview Lloyd for any open lead-driver position. On three later occasions, Swifty filled open lead-driver positions with other applicants. In June 2003, they interviewed Lloyd but hired a more experienced driver. Lloyd filed a second EEOC complaint. In January 2004, Swifty again filed a lead driver position with a more experienced driver, this time without interviewing Lloyd. Lloyd was disciplined for the first time in January 2005 – for loading gasoline from the wrong supplier. Lloyd filed his third EEOC complaint. Subsequent to his last EEOC complaint, Lloyd was disciplined twice more. In May 2005, Lloyd resigned. He filed a complaint, alleging that Swifty a) failed to promote him, disciplined him, and paid him less than others, all on account of his disability and in retaliation for his EEOC charges and taking FMLA leave, b) created a hostile work environment, and c) breached the settlement agreement by not interviewing him for every job opening. The court granted summary judgment to Swifty.

In their opinion, Judges Cudahy, Ripple and Rovner affirmed. The Court concurred with the district court’s holding that Lloyd’s claims regarding the 2001 and 2003 openings were time-barred and that his FMLA claims were barred because Lloyd did not establish that Swifty had more than fifty employees. With respect to the ADA promotion claims, the Court noted that Lloyd proceeded under the “indirect” method of proof. That requires proof that a) he is disabled, b) he was meeting Swifty’s legitimate expectations, c) he suffered adverse employment action, and d) similarly situated employees without a disability were treated more favorably. The Court concluded that Lloyd never even established that he was a “qualified individual” under the ADA – i.e., that he was actually qualified to be a lead driver. Swifty established that a lead driver needed mechanical knowledge and a positive attitude. The uncontradicted testimony was that Lloyd had a negative attitude. With respect to the claims arising from Swifty’s discipline of Lloyd, the Court stated that the written reprimand was not an adverse employment action, the suspension came after and was unrelated to his final EEOC charge, and Lloyd had no personal knowledge that similarly situated drivers were not disciplined. The Court also affirmed the grant of summary judgment on Lloyd’s lower pay, hostile work environment, and breach of contract claims.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link