Dennis Breen v. Infiltrator Systems, Inc., 417 F. App'x 483

Breen, an Infiltrator Systems shipping manager, was diagnosed with Hepatitis C in 2000 and did not immediately disclose it to Infiltrator.
In January 2005, Breen received a negative performance review highlighting issues with customer service, employee relations, inventory rotation, and overall attitude.
Starting in mid-2005, co-workers allegedly questioned Breen about his disease; some comments were hostile, though management did not express negative views about Hepatitis C.
In September–November 2005 Breen faced disciplinary actions for policy violations and interpersonal problems; by November 2005 he was discharged.
Breen sued under Kentucky Civil Rights Act (KCRA) alleging disability discrimination; Infiltrator removed the case and moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted.
The Sixth Circuit reviews the district court’s ruling de novo, applying the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework for disability discrimination.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Breen is a 'disabled' under KCRA as 'regarded as' disabled	Breen alleges Infiltrator regarded him as disabled due to Hepatitis C.	No evidence Infiltrator regarded Breen as disabled; concerns related to performance, not disability.	No disability; no 'regarded as disabled' perception shown.
Whether Breen presented a prima facie case of disability discrimination	Breen asserts management viewed him as limited by Hepatitis C.	No substantial limitation shown; comments did not reflect a major life activity limitation.	Prima facie case not established.
Whether Infiltrator’s reasons for discharge were pretextual	Discharge tied to Breen’s Hepatitis C and perceived disability.	Discharge based on attendance, policy noncompliance, and hostile conduct; legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons.	Reasons legitimate; no pretext shown.
Whether Kentucky Act allows a mixed-motive theory of discrimination	Claim proceeds on mixed-motive theory under KCRA.	KCRA does not recognize mixed-motive recovery; must show illegitimate considerations.	Mixed-motive theory not available; no evidence of illegitimate considerations.

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (framework for discrimination proof shifting burden)
Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (U.S. 1989) (mixed-motive discussion at high level)
Monette v. Elec. Data Sys. Corp., 90 F.3d 1173 (6th Cir. 1996) (McDonnell Douglas burden shifting for disability claims)
Hopkins v. Elec. Data Sys. Corp., 196 F.3d 655 (6th Cir. 1999) (disability framework and legitimate reasons defense)
Cline v. BWXT Y-12, LLC, 521 F.3d 507 (6th Cir. 2008) (pretext framework in employment discrimination)
Ross v. Campbell Soup Co., 237 F.3d 701 (6th Cir. 2001) (awareness of illness does not equal disability)
Adams v. Louisville-Jefferson Cnty. Metro Gov’t, No. 2008-CA-000754-MR, 2009 WL 637294 (Ky. Ct. App. 2009) (pre-2008 ADA standards applied to Kentucky statute)
Gowesky v. Singing River Hosp. Sys., 321 F.3d 503 (5th Cir. 2003) (comments about illness do not prove substantial life activity limitation)
Risch v. Royal Oak Police Dept., 581 F.3d 383 (6th Cir. 2009) (perspective of those who discharge matters for disability view)
Hallahan v. Courier-Journal, 138 S.W.3d 699 (Ky. Ct. App. 2004) (state law disability standards reference)