Keith Curtis v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, 807 F.3d 215

Background

Curtis worked at Costco from 2001 and was promoted to optical manager in 2008; Hinds was his supervisor.
In 2011–2012 Costco documented repeated performance problems (customer complaints, scheduling failures, dress-code violations) and placed Curtis on a 90-day PIP in April 2012.
In early May 2012 a subordinate (Jalowiec) reported Curtis said he might take a medical leave to “scam” the company; Costco demoted Curtis from manager to cashier on May 19, 2012.
Curtis took two FMLA leaves (Sept–Nov 2011; May 21, 2012 onward); he requested a transfer while on the second leave (June 6, 2012) and was denied; he was not medically cleared to return until Jan 2013 and later obtained a Merrillville optical position in July 2013.
Curtis sued Costco and Hinds asserting FMLA retaliation and interference, ADA discrimination and failure-to-accommodate; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants after finding Curtis failed to comply with Local Rule 56.1.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding Curtis’s Rule 56.1 response was deficient and, on the merits, that Curtis’s FMLA and ADA claims lacked necessary proof.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
FMLA retaliation (demotion)	Curtis argues his comment about taking a medical leave was protected FMLA activity and the demotion was retaliatory	Costco contends the comment was not adequate notice/protected and demotion was based on documented performance issues and an ethics violation reported by a subordinate	Court: comment to subordinate was not sufficient notice/protected activity; demotion supported by undisputed performance problems and ethics concerns; summary judgment for Costco/Hinds
FMLA interference (failure to reinstate/transfer)	Curtis contends refusal to permit transfer/return while on leave interfered with FMLA rights	Costco argues employee was not medically cleared to work; employer need not reinstate or transfer an employee who cannot perform essential functions	Court: denial of transfer/return while Curtis was not cleared is not an adverse action under FMLA; no interference; summary judgment for defendants
ADA disparate-treatment	Curtis asserts disability discrimination	Costco argues claim was not developed below or on appeal	Court: claim waived for failure to raise/brief; no relief
ADA failure to accommodate	Curtis claims denial of transfer was failure to reasonably accommodate his disability	Costco argues Curtis was not a qualified individual because he was unable to work when he requested transfer; once cleared Costco reinstated him when a position opened	Court: Curtis was not a qualified individual at time of request; no failure to accommodate; summary judgment for defendants

Key Cases Cited

Cracco v. Vitran Express, Inc., 559 F.3d 625 (7th Cir.) (treating undisputed local-rule facts as admitted and setting out direct-method elements for retaliation)
Aubuchon v. Knauf Fiberglass GMBH, 359 F.3d 950 (7th Cir.) (employee must give sufficient information to place employer on notice of probable FMLA entitlement)
James v. Hyatt Regency Chicago, 707 F.3d 775 (7th Cir.) (employer need not reinstate employee unable to perform essential job functions; no adverse action for refusal to reinstate before clearance)
Shaffer v. American Medical Ass’n, 662 F.3d 439 (7th Cir.) (temporal proximity can support inference of causation where no competing nondiscriminatory explanation exists)
Scruggs v. Carrier Corp., 688 F.3d 821 (7th Cir.) (FMLA protection removed where employee submitted false paperwork or misused leave)
Smith v. Hope Sch., 560 F.3d 694 (7th Cir.) (submission of false FMLA paperwork defeats protected-activity claim)
Stevenson v. Hyre Elec. Co., 505 F.3d 720 (7th Cir.) (insufficient notice when employee repeatedly called in sick without details)
Daugherty v. Wabash Ctr., Inc., 577 F.3d 747 (7th Cir.) (employer entitled to summary judgment when undisputed evidence shows adverse action based on prior performance problems)
Kotwica v. Rose Packing Co., Inc., 637 F.3d 744 (7th Cir.) (elements for ADA failure-to-accommodate claim)
Gile v. United Airlines, Inc., 95 F.3d 492 (7th Cir.) (employer duty to offer vacant positions as accommodation when appropriate)