Hizer v. South Bend Tribune, 31 F. Supp. 3d 986

Hizer worked as a part-time editorial coordinator in the Flagship Publications Department since July 2005.
In July 2009 she was inadvertently sprayed by an automatic air freshener and developed an allergic reaction; she was allowed to go home for the day and later asked coworkers to use scent-free products.
Dr. Smith issued a note in Sept. 2009 stating Hizer was intolerant of perfumes and fragrances and should have a restroom free of accelerants; the defendant designated a chemical-free restroom for her use.
By Feb. 2010, after a meeting with Harris and Henry, Hizer requested a perfume-free department, telecommuting, and a private restroom; she provided a doctor’s note reiterating needs.
In March 2010 the defendant relocated her to a different area with an allergy-conscious setup; through 2010–2011 further accommodations were implemented (private office, locked restroom, air purifier).
In May 2011 Hizer filed an EEOC charge; June 2011 her department was eliminated and she was laid off; she filed this lawsuit in December 2011 asserting ADA claims and retaliation; the court later addressed a hostile-work-environment claim raised in response to summary judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
ADA failure to accommodate viability	Hizer contends the firm failed to reasonably accommodate her disability.	Tribune engaged in interactive process and provided or pursued accommodations.	No triable issue; accommodation was reasonable and timely.
Discrimination based on disability	Termination due to disability and requests for accommodation.	Termination was due to department consolidation, not disability.	No triable issue; termination followed departmental elimination for business reasons.
Retaliation for protected activity	Termination linked to EEOC/ADA activity.	No causal link shown; timing alone insufficient.	No triable issue; evidence does not support causation.
Hostile Work Environment under ADA	Work climate allegedly harbored hostility linked to disability.	No pervasive, severe, or disability-based harassment shown; complaint not properly raised.	No triable issue; hostile environment claim failed on merits and procedural grounds.

Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. dep't, 417 F.3d 789 (7th Cir. 2005) (reasonable accommodation requires interactive process, not exact accommodation)
Cloe v. City of Indianapolis, 712 F.3d 1171 (7th Cir. 2013) (interactive process; employer not bound to the exact accommodation initially chosen)
Gile v. United Airlines, Inc., 95 F.3d 492 (7th Cir. 1996) (defining reasonable accommodations within ADA interactive process)
Ekstrand v. School Dist. of Somerset, 583 F.3d 972 (7th Cir. 2009) (knowledge of disability required for accommodation obligation)
Hoppe v. Lewis Univ., 692 F.3d 833 (7th Cir. 2012) (employer’s accommodation may be reasonable even if not perfectly effective)
Mlynczak v. Bodman, 442 F.3d 1050 (7th Cir. 2006) (courts cautions against relying on subjective beliefs to create factual disputes in discrimination cases)