Leibas v. Dart
1:19-cv-07592
N.D. Ill.Mar 31, 2022Background
- Plaintiffs are five Cook County Sheriff’s Office (CCSO) Correctional Officers/Deputy Sheriffs with various physical limitations; in Sept. 2018 CCSO began enforcing a policy requiring sworn officers to rotate through all assignments.
- CCSO maintains written "essential functions" checklists for CO and DS duties (including inmate contact, use of force, transporting detainees, carrying a firearm, and emergency response); rotation is needed so each officer can be deployed as operational needs require.
- Budget cuts and staffing shortages prompted HR to audit employees with permanent medical restrictions; ~70–80 officers received a Sept. 14, 2018 "options" letter to (1) show no restrictions, (2) request an ADA accommodation (excluding permanent desk duty), or (3) take an eSkills test for alternate civilian vacancies.
- Four plaintiffs (Donis, DiGioia, Tague, Barker) had medical restrictions that made them unable to perform some CO/DS essential functions; CCSO offered alternatives (e.g., civilian roles or temporary modified duty) or determined no reasonable accommodation would allow full performance.
- Procedural posture: Defendants moved for summary judgment; the court granted it in full for all plaintiffs except Irma Leibas, whose ADA discrimination and failure-to-accommodate claims survived.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADA discrimination / failure-to-accommodate (can employer be required to give permanent limited assignments?) | Plaintiffs: they can perform essential functions (or can with accommodations) and CCSO previously allowed indefinite modified assignments. | CCSO: rotation through all assignments is an essential requirement; employer need not create or maintain a job that omits essential duties. | Court: Most plaintiffs not "qualified" because permanent reassignment to avoid essential duties is unreasonable; summary judgment for defendants except as to Leibas. |
| Administrative exhaustion (Barker) | Barker: single-filing/piggybacking exception should allow her to rely on others' EEOC filings. | Defendants: Barker failed to exhaust and lacks right-to-sue. | Court: Considered exception but ultimately disposed of Barker's claims on the merits; exhaustion issue did not change outcome. |
| §1983 Equal Protection (sham accommodations / disparate treatment) | Plaintiffs: HR process targeted disabled officers and was a pretext for adverse treatment. | Defendants: Action had rational basis—safety, operational need and staffing shortages justified the review. | Court: Rational-basis review satisfied; equal protection claims dismissed. |
| FMLA retaliation (DiGioia) | DiGioia: request for updated ADA paperwork immediately after FMLA request was retaliatory and chilling. | Defendants: No adverse action; request for medical info was routine and non-retaliatory. | Court: No adverse action or causal evidence; FMLA retaliation claim dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Illinois Department of Corrections, [citation="107 F.3d 483"] (7th Cir. 1997) (rotation requirement at detention facility legitimate; employer need not provide permanent reassignment that avoids essential duties)
- Dargis v. Sheahan, [citation="526 F.3d 981"] (7th Cir. 2008) (correctional officer not entitled to permanent non-inmate-contact assignment where rotation and inmate-contact duties are essential)
- Gratzl v. Office of Chief Judges of 12th, 18th, 19th, and 22nd Jud. Cirs., [citation="601 F.3d 674"] (7th Cir. 2010) (employer may eliminate a job structure and make previously segregated duties essential across positions)
- Dunderdale v. United Airlines, Inc., [citation="807 F.3d 849"] (7th Cir. 2015) (employer need not preserve a position or structure serving as an accommodation when eliminated for legitimate business reasons)
- Bilinsky v. American Airlines, Inc., [citation="928 F.3d 565"] (7th Cir. 2019) (changes in job duties can alter essential functions and eliminate prior accommodations)
- Watson v. Lithonia Lighting, [citation="304 F.3d 749"] (7th Cir. 2002) (ADA does not require creation of a new job comprising only a subset of existing tasks)
- Malabarba v. Chicago Tribune Co., [citation="149 F.3d 690"] (7th Cir. 1998) (employer not required to separate a multi-duty position to accommodate an employee unable to perform one duty)