Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. AutoZone, Inc.
809 F.3d 916
7th Cir.2016Background
- Margaret Zych was a Parts Sales Manager (PSM) at AutoZone’s Cudahy, WI store; in June 2009 her physician permanently restricted her from lifting over 15 pounds with her right arm.
- AutoZone discharged Zych about one month after the permanent restriction, saying it could not accommodate the restriction given the job’s requirements and store staffing.
- EEOC sued under the ADA, alleging failure to accommodate and discriminatory termination; after a five-day jury trial the jury found Zych was not a “qualified individual with a disability.”
- EEOC moved for a new trial arguing (1) the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence, (2) medical evidence established disability as a matter of law, and (3) the court erred by refusing EEOC’s proposed “team concept” jury instruction; the district court denied the motion.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed: it held there was sufficient evidence that heavy lifting was an essential function of the PSM job and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing the team-concept instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence (i.e., whether Zych was a "qualified individual with a disability") | Zych could perform essential job functions; evidence and medical records establish disability and accommodation should have been possible | PSM duties required frequent/heavy lifting (batteries, planograms, truck/hub deliveries); written job description and co-worker testimony show lifting is an essential function | Affirmed: reasonable jurors could find heavy lifting was an essential function and Zych could not perform it, so verdict not against manifest weight of evidence |
| Whether the district court erred by refusing EEOC’s proposed “team concept” jury instruction | The store operated as a team; coworkers regularly substituted tasks so the jury should be instructed that non-uniform task allocation can make certain functions non-essential (relying on Miller) | The record did not show a normal course of reassigning essential tasks among PSMs; occasional coworker help is not the same as the team-work allocation in Miller; allowing the theory in argument was sufficient | Affirmed: refusal not an abuse of discretion; instruction unnecessary and EEOC was not prejudiced, particularly since EEOC declined to argue the theory at closing |
| Whether delegation of essential lifting functions to coworkers is a reasonable accommodation | EEOC: permitting coworkers to perform lifting would reasonably accommodate Zych | AutoZone: delegating fundamental duties effectively reassigns essential functions and is not reasonable | Affirmed: delegating essential lifting is not a reasonable accommodation under controlling precedent |
| Whether a co-worker’s (Kurta) continued employment undermines the verdict | EEOC: inconsistency—Kurta had impairment but remained employed, so Zych should be deemed qualified | AutoZone: Kurta was part-time, different duties, no formal lifting restriction, and factual differences justify different outcomes | Affirmed: any inconsistency does not mandate reversal where record supports jury verdict |
Key Cases Cited
- James v. Hyatt Regency Chicago, 707 F.3d 775 (7th Cir. 2013) (delegating essential lifting duties is not a reasonable accommodation)
- Miller v. Illinois Dep’t of Transp., 643 F.3d 190 (7th Cir. 2011) (team-based task reassignment can show a discrete duty is nonessential when reallocation is normal course of work)
- Majors v. General Electric Co., 714 F.3d 527 (7th Cir. 2013) (employee with lifting restriction not qualified when job involved intermittent movement of heavy objects)
- Rogers v. ACF Indus., Inc., 774 F.2d 814 (7th Cir. 1985) (appellate court must find evidentiary basis in record for jury verdict; conflicts in evidence do not require reversal)
- Lavender v. Kurn, 327 U.S. 645 (U.S. 1946) (appellate courts defer to jury’s resolution of conflicting inferences)
- Lewis v. City of Chicago Police Dep’t, 590 F.3d 427 (7th Cir. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion standard for new trial denial based on manifest-weight challenge)