76 F.4th 635
7th Cir.2023Background:
- Anna Kinney was Director of Imaging Services at St. Vincent Evansville, supervising ~120 staff; job description required use of personal protective equipment and on-site liaison/supervisory duties.
- Kinney has diagnosed anxiety (and other conditions) and had intermittent FMLA leave approved in 2018; she began working remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic and stopped coming on site in August 2020 because she said masks exacerbated her anxiety.
- Management required department heads to return on-site; after complaints about Kinney’s absence, the hospital asked her to work on site several days per week and proposed alternatives (face shield, supplier masks); Kinney submitted physician notes seeking full-time remote work or minimal mask time.
- The hospital denied the requested accommodations as unreasonable; Kinney worked partially on site for a period, then took leave and ultimately resigned instead of returning; she filed EEOC charges and sued under the ADA and Title VII (failure to accommodate, discrimination, retaliation) and also alleged failure to promote to two positions.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the employer on all claims; Kinney appealed only the ADA claims and the two Title VII failure-to-promote claims.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kinney was a "qualified individual" under the ADA (could perform essential job functions while complying with safety rules) | Kinney argued she could perform supervisory/liaison duties remotely and thus was qualified without wearing a mask on site | St. Mary’s argued essential supervisory and liaison functions required in-person presence and use of PPE, so Kinney couldn’t perform essential functions if exempted from mask rule | Court: Kinney was not a qualified individual; essential functions required in-person presence and she relied on others to perform on-site duties and thus couldn’t be excused from PPE requirement |
| Whether the requested accommodation (full-time or largely remote work to avoid masks; limited mask time) was reasonable | Kinney contended remote work or very limited mask exposure would accommodate her anxiety without harming operations | St. Mary’s said the requests would remove essential in-person supervisory duties and were not reasonable; alternatives (face shield/mask variants) were proposed and not ruled out by Kinney | Court: Requested accommodations were unreasonable because they would excuse performance of essential job functions rather than enable them |
| Title VII failure-to-promote: Warrick County Hospital administrator | Kinney claimed sex discrimination in not advancing to final selection and alleged manager bias | St. Mary’s said selection based on interview performance and relevant experience; interviewers (not biased manager) made the decision | Court: Summary judgment affirmed — plaintiff failed to show employer’s stated reason was pretextual |
| Title VII failure-to-promote: Vice President of Finance | Kinney argued she was comparably or better qualified due to leadership experience and advanced degree | St. Mary’s relied on the chosen candidate’s direct finance credentials (BA in accounting/finance, MBA, CPA, finance dept experience) | Court: Summary judgment affirmed — Kinney was not similarly or better qualified for a finance-focused role |
| Constructive discharge / retaliation (ADA & Title VII) — whether resignation was an adverse action | Kinney argued denial of accommodation forced her to choose between health and job and thus constituted constructive discharge/retaliation | St. Mary’s argued denial was lawful because accommodation was unreasonable and Kinney never communicated inability to return with alternatives before resigning | Court: No constructive discharge; plaintiff did not present facts showing intolerable conditions or that employer compelled resignation; no adverse action established |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (establishes burden-shifting framework for disparate-treatment employment claims)
- Majors v. General Electric Co., 714 F.3d 527 (7th Cir. 2013) (accommodation requiring another employee to perform an essential function is unreasonable)
- Vande Zande v. Wisconsin Dep’t of Admin., 44 F.3d 538 (7th Cir. 1995) (working from home generally disfavored as a reasonable accommodation because it can defeat supervision/teamwork requirements)
- Bilinsky v. American Airlines, Inc., 928 F.3d 565 (7th Cir. 2019) (technological advances make work-from-home feasibility an issue-specific inquiry rather than an automatic presumption)
- Suders v. Easton, 542 U.S. 129 (2004) (constructive discharge principles; resignation can be adverse action if working conditions are intolerable)