James Graham, Jr. v. Arctic Zone Iceplex LLC
930 F.3d 926
7th Cir.2019Background
- James Graham hired Dec 2014 as head mechanic/maintenance supervisor responsible for rink upkeep and operating the Zamboni.
- Early performance concerns: customer complaints about attitude and observed tardiness/insubordination (no prior written discipline).
- Feb–May 2015: Graham injured, returned with medical restriction requiring work from a seated position; Arctic Zone assigned him to skate-sharpening as an accommodation. Graham did not inform employer that he believed skate-sharpening could not be done seated.
- Aug 2015: Graham moved to evening/night schedule (he viewed as a demotion); October 2015: Graham caused a Zamboni accident that damaged rink wall and allegedly posed a hazard.
- Arctic Zone terminated Graham the day of the accident, citing five reasons: attitude about schedule change, poor customer interactions, untimeliness, insubordination, and the Zamboni accident.
- Graham sued under the ADA for failure to reasonably accommodate and discriminatory termination; district court granted summary judgment for Arctic Zone; Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to reasonably accommodate | Graham: skate-sharpening could not be done seated, so assignment failed to meet his restriction | Arctic Zone: assigned a task it believed could be done seated; Graham never told employer skate-sharpening was incompatible, so interactive process never informed | Court: Affirmed for Arctic Zone — Graham failed to provide sufficient info to trigger accommodation obligations |
| Disability-based termination (but-for causation) | Graham: termination was because of his disability; stated reasons were pretextual (no prior discipline, inconsistencies, disparate treatment vs. Heavner) | Arctic Zone: termination based on accumulated performance issues and the Zamboni accident; honest belief in those reasons; Heavner not similarly situated | Court: Affirmed for Arctic Zone — Graham failed to show pretext or that disability was but-for cause |
| Pretext from lack of prior written discipline | Graham: absence of earlier write-ups shows employer fabricated reasons | Arctic Zone: prior issues were known and could accumulate; failure to discipline earlier doesn’t prove falsity | Court: Held that omission of earlier discipline does not demonstrate pretext |
| Comparative treatment with other employee (Heavner) | Graham: Heavner caused larger damage but was not fired, showing disparate treatment | Arctic Zone: Heavner had clean prior record and his accident did not pose customer danger; employees not similarly situated | Court: Held employees not similarly situated; no inference of discrimination |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Milwaukee Bd. of Sch. Dirs., 855 F.3d 818 (7th Cir. 2017) (employer–employee interactive process and employee’s duty to provide sufficient information for accommodation)
- Ortiz v. Werner Enterprises, Inc., 834 F.3d 760 (7th Cir. 2016) (but-for causation inquiry in discriminatory termination cases)
- Hitchcock v. Angel Corps, Inc., 718 F.3d 733 (7th Cir. 2013) (pretext analysis for termination claims)
- Monroe v. Ind. Dep't of Trans., 871 F.3d 495 (7th Cir. 2017) (employer’s honest belief standard in assessing pretext)
- Lloyd v. Swifty Trans., Inc., 552 F.3d 594 (7th Cir. 2009) (requirements for showing employees are similarly situated for disparate-treatment inference)