Kimberly Bilinsky v. American Airlines, Inc.
928 F.3d 565
7th Cir.2019Background
- Kimberly Bilinsky, a long-time American Airlines communications specialist with MS, worked remotely from Chicago under a longstanding Work From Home Arrangement (WFHA); she traveled to Dallas about one day per week.
- Bilinsky’s MS is aggravated by heat, making relocation to Dallas (hotter climate) infeasible; American had accommodated her for years without performance issues.
- After American’s 2013 merger with US Airways, the Flight Service Department’s duties shifted toward in-person, event-driven crisis management; leadership decided to require physical presence at Dallas headquarters and rescinded remote arrangements for multiple employees.
- Bilinsky refused to relocate; American investigated alternative positions (some in Chicago) but either she was unqualified or the roles were unavailable; she also was denied a Dallas-based technical-writer role when the company would not permit remote work for that vacancy.
- American terminated Bilinsky in May 2015 after she would not relocate; she sued under the ADA and Illinois Human Rights Act alleging failure to accommodate and retaliation; the district court granted summary judgment for American, finding Bilinsky was not a "qualified individual." The Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bilinsky remained a "qualified individual" under the ADA after post‑merger duty changes | Bilinsky argued her WFHA had allowed her to perform essential functions before and after the merger; in-person presence was not essential | American argued the merger transformed the job: frequent, short‑notice, face‑to‑face collaboration and events became essential, and Bilinsky could not meet that requirement from Chicago | Held for defendant: job functions changed post‑merger so on‑site presence became essential; Bilinsky was not qualified |
| Whether employer’s judgment about essential functions is dispositive | Bilinsky argued employer preference for on‑site work cannot alone establish essential function | American relied on its managerial judgment and testimony about changed work practices and uniform policy rescinding remote work | Held: deference to employer’s judgment appropriate where supported by evidence of changed duties; employer’s view not controlling but here sufficient evidence existed |
| Sufficiency of plaintiff’s evidence to create a factual dispute | Bilinsky pointed to long history of successful remote performance and supervisor testimony she was willing and capable | American pointed to supervisory testimony that remote employees could not perform event‑support tasks (e.g., AV checks, hotel site visits) and the Leadership Conference as illustrative | Held: plaintiff’s evidence did not show material dispute that the essential functions had changed; single‑event absence not rebutted as isolated |
| Whether the ADA required alternative accommodations or interactive process | Bilinsky argued employer failed to provide or consider reasonable alternatives | American had explored other positions; district court and majority did not reach interactive‑process adequacy because plaintiff was not a qualified individual | Held: court declined to address interactive‑process/alternative‑accommodation issues because plaintiff was not qualified for the transformed job |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Illinois Dep't of Transportation, 643 F.3d 190 (7th Cir. 2011) (employer’s actual work practices relevant to whether a function is essential)
- Taylor-Navotny v. Health All. Med. Plans, Inc., 772 F.3d 478 (7th Cir. 2014) (attendance can be an essential function; erratic availability need not be accommodated)
- DePaoli v. Abbott Labs., 140 F.3d 668 (7th Cir. 1998) (worker has no ADA claim if, with reasonable accommodation, she cannot do the job)
- Gratzl v. Office of Chief Judges, 601 F.3d 674 (7th Cir. 2010) (cannot rely on qualification for a previous job when essential functions of current job changed)
- Vande Zande v. State of Wis. Dep't of Admin., 44 F.3d 538 (7th Cir. 1995) (working from home as an accommodation is exceptional but context‑dependent and evolving)
- Brown v. Smith, 827 F.3d 609 (7th Cir. 2016) (essential‑function inquiry is factual; employer’s written description not always conclusive)
- EEOC v. McLeod Health, Inc., 914 F.3d 876 (4th Cir. 2019) (reversing summary judgment where written job description and actual duties did not clearly make travel or in‑person tasks essential)