Debra Kauffman v. Petersen Health Care VII, LLC
769 F.3d 958
7th Cir.2014Background
- Plaintiff Debra Kauffman was a hairdresser at Mason Point nursing home since 1981; duties included cutting hair, some ancillary chores, and wheeling residents (many wheelchair-bound) to/from the beauty parlor.
- After a hysterectomy with pelvic repair and mesh, her doctor imposed lifting/pushing restrictions and warned against pushing occupied wheelchairs repeatedly.
- Kauffman informed administrator Darin Wall she could not push residents; Wall stated the facility does not permit employees to work with (permanent) restrictions and declined to accommodate; Kauffman quit and sued under the ADA.
- District court granted summary judgment for Mason Point, concluding wheeling residents was an essential job function and no reasonable accommodation would permit Kauffman to perform it.
- The Seventh Circuit (Posner, J.) reversed and remanded, finding genuine factual disputes about time spent wheeling, whether reassignment or minor staff adjustments could accommodate her, and whether the employer engaged in the required interactive process.
- Concurring opinion (Manion, J.) agreed remand was required but cautioned that time percentage and reassignment feasibility are not dispositive to whether a function is essential and suggested alternative accommodations (e.g., attendant-controlled wheelchair) be considered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether transporting residents to/from salon is an essential function of the hairdresser position | Kauffman: wheeling occupied wheelchairs was a small portion of her duties (≈1–2 hrs/week) and could be reassigned or otherwise accommodated | Mason Point: wheeling occupied residents is an essential function and would require hiring or significant hardship to reassign | Reversed: factual disputes (time spent, feasibility/cost of reassignment) preclude summary judgment; trial required |
| Whether employer engaged in required interactive process to identify reasonable accommodation | Kauffman: Wall failed to ask probing questions or explore reassignments, job restructuring, or other accommodations | Mason Point: asserted inability to accommodate and policy against employing workers with permanent restrictions | Held: employer did not meaningfully engage; failure to explore accommodations weighs against summary judgment for employer |
| Whether employer’s blanket policy against employees with permanent restrictions is a defense | Kauffman: blanket 100% healed policy unlawfully absolves employer of assessing reasonable accommodations | Mason Point: policy justified non-retention of employees with permanent restrictions | Held: A blanket policy does not relieve employer of ADA obligations; courts must evaluate reasonable accommodation and undue hardship on a case-by-case basis |
| Burden to show undue hardship | Kauffman: minor reassignment of existing staff or use of minimal orderly time would not impose undue hardship | Mason Point: claimed hiring a dedicated transporter would be burdensome | Held: Employer bears burden to prove undue hardship and offered no convincing evidence; summary judgment inappropriate without trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Powers v. USF Holland, Inc., 667 F.3d 815 (7th Cir. 2011) (employer cannot avoid accommodation duties via blanket policy excluding employees with permanent restrictions)
- Henderson v. Ardco, Inc., 247 F.3d 645 (6th Cir. 2001) (discussing limits of blanket policies and reasonable accommodation obligations)
- Majors v. General Electric Co., 714 F.3d 527 (7th Cir. 2013) (team duty-sharing can be a form of reasonable accommodation)
- Miller v. Illinois Dept. of Transportation, 643 F.3d 190 (7th Cir. 2011) (circumstances may permit duty-sharing as reasonable accommodation)
- Basith v. Cook County, 241 F.3d 919 (7th Cir. 2001) (factors for determining essential job functions; time spent is relevant but not dispositive)
- Bombard v. Fort Wayne Newspapers, Inc., 92 F.3d 560 (7th Cir. 1996) (employer must engage in interactive process to identify reasonable accommodations)
- Barnett v. U.S. Air, Inc., 228 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (interactive process and reasonable accommodation principles)