Anthimos Gogos v. AMS-Mechanical System, Incorpo
737 F.3d 1170
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Gogos, a pipe welder with 45 years’ experience, worked for AMS beginning December 2012 and was fired on January 30, 2013 after reporting very high blood pressure and acute vision loss and leaving to seek medical care.
- He had a longstanding history of hypertension treated with medication for over eight years and experienced an acute episode of high blood pressure with intermittent blindness while employed by AMS.
- Gogos filed an EEOC charge and received a right-to-sue letter; he then sued AMS under Title I of the ADA claiming termination because of his disability.
- The district court dismissed the complaint, characterizing Gogos’s conditions as transitory and therefore not qualifying as an ADA disability and concluding (incorrectly) that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction; it also denied in forma pauperis relief and appointment of counsel as moot.
- On appeal, the Seventh Circuit treated the dismissal as one for failure to state a claim and reviewed de novo, construing pro se allegations in Gogos’s favor.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gogos alleged a disability under the ADA | Gogos says his hypertension and resulting episodic vision loss substantially limit major life activities (circulatory function, eyesight) | AMS implicitly argued the conditions were transitory/minor and not covered | Held: Under the ADA Amendments Act and regulations, episodic impairments and effects of hypertension qualify; allegations suffice to plead disability |
| Whether complaint pleaded qualification to perform essential job functions | Gogos alleges 45 years’ experience and worked as a welder for AMS before firing | AMS argued (in effect) that he was not disabled so qualification inquiry moot | Held: Allegations adequately plead that Gogos was qualified for the job |
| Whether termination was because of disability (adverse action causation) | Gogos alleges he was fired immediately after reporting medical problems | AMS argued firing was justified or that condition was not disabling | Held: Allegations plausibly state that he was fired because of his disability |
| Whether dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was appropriate | Gogos attached EEOC charge and right-to-sue letter; claims invoke federal question jurisdiction | District court held lack of jurisdiction due to finding no disability | Held: Dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction was incorrect; appeal remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Hemi Grp., LLC v. City of New York, 559 U.S. 1 (procedural standard treating allegations as true on appeal)
- Swanson v. Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d 400 (pro se complaint standard)
- Basith v. Cook Cnty., 241 F.3d 919 (EEOC exhaustion and attachment of charge)
- Bovee v. Broom, 732 F.3d 743 (district-court dismissal characterization)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard)
- E.E.O.C. v. Lee’s Log Cabin, Inc., 546 F.3d 438 (elements of an ADA Title I claim)
- AnchorBank, FSB v. Hofer, 649 F.3d 610 (inferences for complaint review)
- Peters v. City of Mauston, 311 F.3d 835 (qualified to perform essential functions under ADA)