966 F.3d 624
7th Cir.2020Background
- FedEx handler job required lifting packages “up to 75 pounds”; job description did not specify heights, but facility containers and truck shelves could place packages above waist/shoulder.
- Kotaska injured her right shoulder in 2011; post‑surgery restrictions: lift 60 lbs floor→waist; 15–30 lbs waist→shoulder (frequent/occasional); 5 lbs overhead frequently, 15 lbs overhead occasionally/two‑handed.
- FedEx terminated Kotaska in 2013 for inability to perform handler duties; she later applied and was rehired as a handler in April 2015 after a supervisor’s assurances; she worked about three weeks without documented performance problems.
- FedEx learned of her restrictions, concluded she could not perform essential handler functions (lifting up to 75 lbs above waist/overhead), placed her on leave, and ultimately dismissed her again.
- District court granted summary judgment for FedEx; Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding Kotaska failed to prove she was a "qualified individual" under the ADA and failed to show a but‑for causal link for retaliation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kotaska is a "qualified individual" under the ADA (can perform essential functions with/without accommodation) | Kotaska argued her amended restrictions allowed frequent lifting to waist of 75 lbs and that she performed the handler job successfully during her three weeks, so a reasonable jury could find her qualified | FedEx argued handlers must be able to lift up to 75 lbs in and out of containers/trucks, including lifting above the waist/shoulder with some frequency, and Kotaska’s restrictions preclude reliably performing those functions | Held: Kotaska failed to show a triable issue that she could perform essential functions; summary judgment for FedEx affirmed |
| Whether lifting 75 lbs overhead is an essential function of the handler job | Kotaska and some co‑workers testified handlers need not lift 75 lbs overhead in practice | FedEx initially maintained overhead lifting of 75 lbs was required but later conceded overhead 75‑lb lifts are not required; it maintained handlers must lift up to 75 lbs and lift some weights above waist/shoulder | Held: A jury could find 75 lbs overhead is not essential, but dispute is immaterial because Kotaska’s restrictions still preclude lifting the lesser but necessary weights above waist/shoulder |
| Probative value of three weeks of successful work as a handler | Kotaska contended her short successful stint shows she could do the job | FedEx noted unpredictability/variance in package placement and weight and that three weeks is too short to show ability to perform all essential functions reliably | Held: Three weeks is insufficient here to create a genuine issue given the job’s unpredictability; longer successful performance is usually required |
| Retaliation: causation between prior protected complaints and second termination | Kotaska argued earlier internal complaints and overlapping decisionmakers create an inference of retaliation | FedEx argued (and record showed) the second termination was based on unchanged medical restrictions and the second dismissal followed discovery she had been rehired without documentation; >1 year elapsed between protected activity and second firing | Held: No triable evidence of but‑for causation; timing and record support that second firing was continuation of nondiscriminatory action, not retaliation |
Key Cases Cited
- Bilinsky v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 928 F.3d 565 (7th Cir. 2019) (review of summary judgment; view evidence in nonmovant’s favor)
- Wheatley v. Factory Card & Party Outlet, 826 F.3d 412 (7th Cir. 2016) (plaintiff bears burden to show she is a qualified individual)
- Miller v. Illinois Dep't of Corrections, 107 F.3d 483 (7th Cir. 1997) (plaintiff has burden on capability to perform essential functions)
- Brown v. Smith, 827 F.3d 609 (7th Cir. 2016) (whether a function is essential is a question of fact; employer’s judgment is important but not dispositive)
- Shell v. Smith, 789 F.3d 715 (7th Cir. 2015) (job description is evidence of essential functions)
- Bates v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 511 F.3d 974 (9th Cir. 2007) (employer bears burden of producing evidence of essential job functions; plaintiffs must still prove they can perform them)
- Peters v. City of Mauston, 311 F.3d 835 (7th Cir. 2002) (responding to rare events can be an essential function)
- Majors v. Gen. Elec. Co., 714 F.3d 527 (7th Cir. 2013) (requiring continuous coworker assistance is not a reasonable accommodation as a matter of law)
- Dyke v. O'Neal Steel, Inc., 327 F.3d 628 (7th Cir. 2003) (brief successful employment may be insufficient to show ability to perform essential functions)
- Cleveland v. Policy Mgmt. Sys. Corp., 526 U.S. 795 (1999) (plaintiff must reconcile ADA claims with other assertions; plaintiff bears ultimate burden of proof on qualification)