Gerald Swain v. Christine Wormuth
41 F.4th 892
7th Cir.2022Background:
- Gerald Swain, a civilian machinist at the Rock Island Arsenal, suffered shoulder, carpal tunnel, and hernia injuries that produced lifting and hand-use restrictions.
- The Army repeatedly accommodated Swain: temporary light duty, permanent tool-attendant assignment with pay retention, weighing drawers, a new scale, and a motorized cart with power steering.
- Swain requested automatic door openers for a tool-setting door and the double hallway doors in Building 210; supervisor approved the tool-setting opener and an alternate restroom-door opener but declined the double-hallway opener.
- Paperwork and installation delays meant the approved openers were not installed until August 2016; Swain alleges unreasonable delay and denial of accommodation.
- Swain also alleged he was denied overtime because of his disability; after obtaining a doctor’s clearance he was later placed on the overtime list. He filed administrative complaints and then sued under the Rehabilitation Act for failure-to-accommodate, disparate treatment, and retaliation.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the Army on the accommodation and disparate-treatment claims; the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to accommodate — delay installing tool-setting door opener | Swain: installation delay was unreasonable and constituted failure to accommodate | Army: delay resulted from necessary steps (paperwork, inspection, parts, scheduling); no bad faith; accommodation provided | Delay was not unreasonable under totality of circumstances; no failure-to-accommodate proven |
| Denial of automatic opener for Building 210 double-hallway doors | Swain: supervisor wrongly denied opener with no legitimate basis | Army: doors required less force than restriction; opener not necessary for essential job functions; alternative restroom opener installed | Denial reasonable: not tied to essential functions and alternative provided |
| Disparate treatment — denial of overtime | Swain: denied overtime solely because of disability; comparators show pretext | Army: overtime shifts had one tool attendant; his restrictions without assistance precluded overtime; once cleared, he received overtime | No disparate treatment: Army reasonably concluded he could not perform overtime alone; plaintiff failed to prove "solely by reason of" or pretext |
| Retaliation (and appellate review) | Swain alleged retaliation in complaint | N/A on appeal | Retaliation claim not addressed on appeal — plaintiff forfeited it by failing to brief it |
Key Cases Cited:
- Brumfield v. City of Chicago, 735 F.3d 619 (7th Cir. 2013) (employer need not accommodate disabilities irrelevant to essential job functions)
- EEOC v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 417 F.3d 789 (7th Cir. 2005) (elements of reasonable-accommodation claim under the ADA)
- McCray v. Wilkie, 966 F.3d 616 (7th Cir. 2020) (unreasonable delay in providing accommodation can violate Rehabilitation Act)
- Rehling v. City of Chicago, 207 F.3d 1009 (7th Cir. 2000) (breakdown in interactive process does not necessarily render an otherwise reasonable accommodation unreasonable)
- Majors v. Gen. Elec. Co., 714 F.3d 527 (7th Cir. 2013) (job restructuring and duty-sharing can constitute reasonable accommodations; employer not required to reassign essential functions)
- Graham v. Arctic Zone Iceplex, LLC, 930 F.3d 926 (7th Cir. 2019) (pretext requires more than mistaken judgment by employer)
- Felix v. Wis. Dep't of Transp., 828 F.3d 560 (7th Cir. 2016) (Rehabilitation Act discrimination elements)
- Conners v. Wilkie, 984 F.3d 1255 (7th Cir. 2021) (Rehabilitation Act causation standard is stricter than some ADA standards)