Kotwica v. Rose Packing Co., Inc., 637 F.3d 744

Kotwica, a general laborer at Rose Packing, was fired on March 13, 2006 after her doctor restricted her work activities following hip replacement surgery.
Rose Packing required all general laborers to rotate through multiple tasks and had a return-to-work policy tied to medical releases.
Kotwica notified Rose Packing of planned twelve-week medical leave and surgery, with expectations she would return without restrictions.
A company nurse indicated Kotwica’s restrictions prevented her from returning as a general laborer, not from working in other roles.
The company treated Kotwica’s permanent restrictions (e.g., lifting limits) as potentially disqualifying for return to work under its policy, leading to termination after an alternative assessment by the company doctor.
Kotwica sued under the ADA alleging discharge due to disability; the district court granted summary judgment for Rose Packing, and Kotwica appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Kotwica is a qualified individual with a disability	Kotwica claims post-surgery restrictions qualify her under ADA.	Kotwica lacks a qualifying disability under the ADA definitions.	Kotwica does not establish she is a qualified individual with a disability.
Whether Kotwica has a 'record of' impairment under ADA	There is a history of hip problems that substantially limited her, constituting a record of impairment.	Pre-surgery hip issues did not substantially limit a major life activity; no record of impairment.	No record of impairment shown; Kotwica fails the 'record of' prong.
Whether Rose Packing regarded Kotwica as disabled	Employer’s perception of her impairment as broadly disqualifying shows regarded-as status.	Evidence shows restrictions were not viewed as disqualifying across a broad class of jobs.	Rose Packing did not regard Kotwica as unable to work generally; no 'regarded as' disability.

Sinkler v. Midwest Prop. Mgmt. Ltd. P'ship, 209 F.3d 678 (7th Cir. 2000) (record-of-impairment requires substantial limitation of a major life activity)
Kupstas v. City of Greenwood, 398 F.3d 609 (7th Cir. 2005) (broadly disqualifying view required to show regarded-as or record; burden on plaintiff)
Watson v. Lithonia Lighting, 304 F.3d 749 (7th Cir. 2002) (ADA does not require creating a new subset position for permanent impairments)
Ozlowski v. Henderson, 237 F.3d 837 (7th Cir. 2001) (burden to show vacant position; not enough to show disqualifying impairment)
Hansen v. Henderson, 233 F.3d 521 (7th Cir. 2000) (vacancy and qualifications govern failure-to-recruit claim)
Fredricksen v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 581 F.3d 516 (7th Cir. 2009) (awareness of impairment alone not enough to prove disability)
EEOC v. Schneider, 481 F.3d 507 (7th Cir. 2007) (evidence required to show broad impact on work capabilities)
Davidson v. Midelfort Clinic, Ltd., 133 F.3d 499 (7th Cir. 1998) (regarded-as analysis requires belief of substantial impairment across class of jobs)
Narducci v. Moore, 572 F.3d 313 (7th Cir. 2009) (standards for evaluating disability claims under ADA)
Amadio v. Ford Motor Co., 238 F.3d 919 (7th Cir. 2001) (interpretation of disability definitions under ADA)