ADA Claim Fails Where Claimant Is Unable To Perform The Essential Functions Of His Job
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.
