378 F. Supp. 3d 697
E.D. Ill.2019Background
- Plaintiff Richard Jankowski, a unionized dairy operator at Dean Foods' Huntley plant, suffered workplace neck injuries (2003, 2005, 2009) and worked on light duty before taking medical leave in 2011; he never returned to work and was terminated in Feb 2016 after 60 months of absence per the CBA.
- In August 2014 plaintiff submitted a Work Duty Status Report (permanent restrictions: e.g., no lifting >25 lbs floor-to-waist, no pushing/pulling >50 lbs) and sought return to work; Dean assessed whether he could perform essential operator functions with/without accommodation and concluded he could not.
- Disputes of fact: (1) which tasks are "essential functions" of an Empty Case Room operator (stacking full/empty cases and removing garbage); (2) whether plaintiff could perform those functions through self-accommodation or reasonable accommodations; (3) whether Dean engaged adequately in the interactive process (disagreement over a HIPAA release requirement).
- Procedural posture: Plaintiff sued under the ADA (failure to accommodate and disability discrimination) and Illinois retaliatory discharge/IWCA claims; cross-motions for summary judgment were filed. The union filed an unsuccessful grievance/arbitration; Dean asserted res judicata and other defenses.
- Court rulings on motions: Dean's motion for summary judgment denied in full; plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment granted in part (res judicata and undue hardship defenses) and denied in part (disability element and other defenses).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jankowski is disabled under the ADA | His permanent lifting/pushing restrictions substantially limit the major life activity of lifting | Restrictions do not amount to an ADA disability as a matter of law | Court: disputed fact; cannot decide as matter of law for either side (no SJ) |
| Whether plaintiff was a "qualified individual" able to perform essential functions with/without reasonable accommodation | He could perform essential functions via self-accommodation or other reasonable adjustments; coworkers corroborate | Essential functions (stacking heavy cases/pallets, garbage removal) require lifting beyond restrictions; accommodations would be unreasonable or unavailable | Court: genuine factual disputes exist about essential functions and performability — summary judgment denied to Dean |
| Whether Dean retaliated (refusal to return and/or discharge) in violation of IWCA/common law | Dean refused to return him to work because of IWCA-protected activity, causing loss of seniority and discharge | Separation was lawful under CBA (seniority lapse) and due to inability to perform essential functions; no causal link to IWCA activity | Court: causal link disputed and tied to performability inquiry; summary judgment denied to Dean |
| Whether Dean's affirmative defenses (res judicata, undue hardship, failure to mitigate) bar relief | Res judicata inapplicable to federal ADA claim; undue hardship not established; plaintiff did not fail to mitigate as matter of law | Prior arbitration precludes claims; accommodations would impose undue hardship; plaintiff failed to mitigate damages | Court: grants summary judgment to plaintiff on res judicata and undue hardship defenses; denies plaintiff's motion re: failure to mitigate (jury question) |
Key Cases Cited
- Guzman v. Brown County, 884 F.3d 633 (7th Cir.) (elements of ADA discrimination claim)
- Winfrey v. City of Chicago, 259 F.3d 610 (7th Cir.) (failure-to-accommodate elements)
- Majors v. General Electric Co., 714 F.3d 527 (7th Cir.) (lifting is a major life activity)
- Stern v. St. Anthony's Health Ctr., 788 F.3d 276 (7th Cir.) (factors for determining essential job functions)
- Gratzl v. Office of the Chief Judges, 601 F.3d 674 (7th Cir.) (presumption favoring employer's judgment on essential functions)
- McKinney v. Office of Sheriff of Whitley County, 866 F.3d 803 (7th Cir.) (self-serving affidavits can create triable issues at summary judgment)
- US Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391 (U.S.) (analysis of undue hardship in reasonable accommodation context)