Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Autozone, Inc.
630 F.3d 635
7th Cir.2010Background
- EEOC sued AutoZone on Shepherd's behalf under the ADA for alleged failure to accommodate, discriminatory denial of work, and retaliation.
- District court granted summary judgment on failure-to-accommodate, finding Shepherd not disabled under the ADA before Sept. 12, 2003.
- Shepherd had a back-related myofascial tenderness condition with flare-ups; prior to Sept. 2003 he required assistance with personal care during flare-ups.
- Medical restrictions fluctuated: doctors limited activities (avoid or limit twisting; later restrict lifting), but AutoZone limited Shepherd from returning to work on these restrictions.
- AutoZone kept Shepherd on involuntary medical leave from 2003 until his 2005 discharge; EEOC appealed only the failure-to-accommodate ruling.
- Seventh Circuit reverses, holding a reasonable jury could find Shepherd disabled under the ADA during March–Sept. 2003 and remands for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Shepherd was disabled March–Sept 2003 | Shepherd's impairment substantially limited self-care. | No disability under ADA prior to Sept. 12, 2003. | Genuine issue of material fact exists; could find disability. |
| Whether self-care is a major life activity under the ADA | Self-care is a major life activity; impairment affected it. | Self-care not clearly impaired for ADA purposes. | Disability could include substantial limits on self-care. |
| Whether the impairment was substantially limiting | Frequency and daily impact of flare-ups substantially limited self-care. | Episodic impairment not enough for substantial limitation. | Could be substantial given daily/near-daily impact. |
| Whether medical testimony was required to prove disability | Personal testimony suffices to prove substantial limitation. | Medical evidence needed to prove the extent of limitation. | Medical testimony not strictly necessary where lay testimony and documentation show substantial limitations. |
Key Cases Cited
- Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (Supreme Court 2002) (interpreting 'substantially' to mean considerable or large degree)
- Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624 (Supreme Court 1998) (test for disability involves extent of limitation)
- EEOC v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 233 F.3d 432 (7th Cir. 2000) (episodic condition can sustain disability claim)
- Haschmann v. Time Warner Entm't Co., 151 F.3d 591 (7th Cir. 1998) (episodic flares can constitute a disability)
- Nawrot v. CPC International, 277 F.3d 896 (7th Cir. 2002) (inability to manage own diabetes recognized as self-care limitation)
- Moore v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., 221 F.3d 944 (7th Cir. 2000) (infrequent flare-ups did not establish disability; but not controlling here)
- Sears, Roebuck & Co., 417 F.3d 789 (7th Cir. 2005) (reasonable accommodations analysis under ADA)
- Brunker v. Schwan's Home Service, 583 F.3d 1004 (7th Cir. 2009) (episodic impairment vs. permanent condition discussion)
- Vande Zande v. State of Wis. Dept. of Admin., 44 F.3d 538 (7th Cir. 1995) (intermittent impairment discussed in disability context)
- Fredricksen v. United Parcel Service, 581 F.3d 516 (7th Cir. 2009) (no medical evidence in Fredricksen; contrast to present case)
- Squibb v. Memorial Med. Ctr., 497 F.3d 775 (7th Cir. 2007) (evidence insufficient to defeat summary judgment on self-care disability here)
- Kampmier v. Emeritus Corp., 472 F.3d 930 (7th Cir. 2007) (individualized disability determination)