Felix v. Wisconsin Department of Transportation
828 F.3d 560
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- Eileen Felix, a long‑term WisDOT DMV employee, suffers from PTSD/anxiety and had a history of occasional cash‑handling errors and prior unsatisfactory performance reviews tied to financial accountability.
- On April 18, 2013, Felix experienced a public panic episode at the DMV — crying, screaming, kicking, superficial cuts to her wrists, vocalized suicidal statements — requiring emergency response and alarming coworkers.
- WisDOT placed Felix on FMLA leave, required a fitness‑for‑duty independent medical examination (IME) by Dr. Burbach, and did not permit her to return pending evaluation; Burbach concluded she posed an increased risk of harm to herself and others and was unfit for her position.
- Felix’s treating psychiatrist submitted mixed/limited documentation stating she could return (with some notes that work aggravated her condition), but WisDOT found those submissions insufficient to counter the IME.
- WisDOT terminated Felix effective July 12, 2013, citing the April 18 incident and the IME; Felix sued under the Rehabilitation Act (and brought FMLA claims), and the district court granted summary judgment for WisDOT.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding WisDOT legitimately based the discharge on Felix’s conduct and the safety risk it posed, not solely on her disability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Felix was discharged solely because of her disability | Felix: WisDOT acted solely for disability‑based reasons and should have borne the direct‑threat burden; factual disputes preclude summary judgment | WisDOT: Termination was justified by Felix’s unacceptable conduct and safety risk (Palmer framework), not discrimination | Held: Affirmed — termination was based on conduct and safety concerns, not solely disability |
| Whether the direct‑threat defense governed (and employer bore burden) | Felix: Because WisDOT ordered a fitness‑for‑duty exam, the direct‑threat framework (employer burden) should apply | WisDOT: Relied on Palmer/qualified‑to‑work analysis — conduct itself rendered employee unqualified; IME was part of assessing recurrence risk | Held: Court: direct‑threat framework not required; Palmer applies where disability‑caused conduct is intolerable |
| Whether IME reliance was pretextual or biased | Felix: IME and WisDOT language ("medical separation", use of "risk") show stigma/pretext; defendant changed theories | WisDOT: Reasonable to rely on IME and incident; consistent rationale that conduct plus IME made employee unfit | Held: Held no evidence of pretext; WisDOT honestly relied on IME and the April 18 incident |
| Whether Felix was otherwise qualified to continue employment after April 18 | Felix: Her providers supported return; factual disputes remain about ability to perform essential duties safely | WisDOT: Given violent/suicidal public episode and IME, she was unqualified to continue, especially with road‑test duties | Held: Held that conduct and IME supported conclusion she was not qualified to continue employment |
Key Cases Cited
- Palmer v. Circuit Ct. of Cook Cnty., 117 F.3d 351 (7th Cir. 1997) (behavior caused by mental illness can disqualify an employee from continued employment)
- Brumfield v. City of Chicago, 735 F.3d 619 (7th Cir. 2013) (applies Palmer approach to Rehabilitation Act claims)
- Sista v. CDC Ixis N.A., Inc., 445 F.3d 161 (2d Cir. 2006) (once disability has manifested in threatening conduct, direct‑threat analysis is inapplicable; disparate‑treatment/legitimate nondiscriminatory reason analysis governs)
- Bodenstab v. Cnty. of Cook, 569 F.3d 651 (7th Cir. 2009) (threatening conduct justified discharge irrespective of whether employer also relied on psychiatric assessment)
- Branham v. Snow, 392 F.3d 896 (7th Cir. 2004) (discusses direct‑threat defense and Rehabilitation Act standards)