Anthony Sansone v. Megan Brennan
917 F.3d 975
7th Cir.2019Background
- Anthony Sansone, a long‑time Postal Service employee with multiple sclerosis who uses a wheelchair, had a reserved parking space that accommodated his van ramp until 2011, when management withdrew it.
- Management offered alternative spaces that lacked sufficient room for his ramp or required unsafe travel; Sansone continued using his old spot with supervisory permission while seeking a formal accommodation.
- The Postal Service’s Reasonable Accommodation Committee requested medical information; Sansone, stressed and experiencing panic attacks, ultimately applied for and received disability retirement.
- Sansone sued under the Rehabilitation Act for failure to accommodate (district court granted summary judgment on constructive discharge but not on failure to accommodate); a jury awarded $300,000 compensatory damages.
- The district court separately awarded Sansone $828,774 in back and front pay through his projected retirement date and attorneys’ fees; the Postal Service appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jury instruction on interactive process/cooperation | Sansone: instruction correctly explained that jury may consider cooperation but cannot decide solely by one party’s claim the other failed to cooperate | Postal Service: instruction allowed a verdict for Sansone even if Sansone caused breakdown, conflicting with Sears (employer not liable if employee refuses to participate) | Court: instruction was proper when read in context; it did not say employee could win solely by others’ failure to cooperate and was not erroneous |
| Court’s treatment and jury instruction about defendant’s expert (Dr. Goldstein) | Sansone: expert’s credibility explored on cross; court’s sua sponte admonitions and instruction were appropriate | Postal Service: court wrongly chastised counsel, misstated FRE 703, and instructed jury to distrust the expert because she was given the Service’s summary‑judgment brief | Held: district court erred; admonition and instruction improperly invaded jury’s role and were prejudicial; remand for new trial limited to compensatory damages related to emotional distress |
| Award of back and front pay after retirement | Sansone: Postal Service forfeited this challenge by not raising it adequately below; award stands | Postal Service: Sansone was not actually or constructively discharged, so equitable back/front pay improper | Held: Postal Service forfeited the argument by failing to raise it properly below; award of back and front pay affirmed on appeal (no reversal on this ground) |
Key Cases Cited
- King v. City of Madison, 550 F.3d 598 (7th Cir. 2008) (elements of failure‑to‑accommodate claim)
- Baert v. Euclid Beverage, Ltd., 149 F.3d 626 (7th Cir. 1998) (interactive process cooperation relevant to accommodation analysis)
- Sieberns v. Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc., 125 F.3d 1019 (7th Cir. 1997) (interactive process is a means, not an end)
- Hansen v. Henderson, 233 F.3d 521 (7th Cir. 2000) (employer not liable if no reasonable accommodation was possible despite process breakdown)
- Rehling v. City of Chicago, 207 F.3d 1009 (7th Cir. 2000) (ADA protects accommodation, not punishing employers who made reasonable accommodations)
- EEOC v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 417 F.3d 789 (7th Cir. 2005) (responsibility for breakdown lies with the party causing it; employer may not be liable if employee refuses to participate)
- Stollings v. Ryobi Tech., Inc., 725 F.3d 753 (7th Cir. 2013) (trial judge gatekeeper role does not replace jury’s credibility determination for experts)
- Doornbos v. City of Chicago, 868 F.3d 572 (7th Cir. 2017) (new trial required only if flawed instruction likely confused or prejudiced jury)
- MCI Commc’ns Corp. v. AT&T Co., 708 F.2d 1081 (7th Cir. 1983) (remand for retrial on discrete damages issue appropriate)
- Domka v. Portage Cty., Wis., 523 F.3d 776 (7th Cir. 2008) (party cannot raise on appeal an issue not adequately presented below)