LuzMaria Arroyo v. Volvo Group North America, LLC, 805 F.3d 278

Background

LuzMaria Arroyo, an Army Reservist and veteran with PTSD, worked at Volvo Parts North America (Joliet) from 2005 until her termination in November 2011; Volvo disciplined her under a strict attendance policy for numerous short tardiness incidents.
Arroyo deployed multiple times (including lengthy deployments in 2006–2007 and 2009–2010) and took frequent military leave and drill time; supervisors repeatedly complained internally about the operational burden.
After her 2009–2010 deployment she was offered a severance package which she declined; in late 2010–2011 she was diagnosed with PTSD, took FMLA/disability leave, and requested accommodations (many granted; some pending).
Volvo issued progressive discipline for short tardiness episodes (many of one to ten minutes), culminating in five occurrences within six months and termination on November 8, 2011.
Arroyo sued asserting USERRA discrimination, ADA discrimination and failure-to-accommodate, retaliation, Rehabilitation Act and Title VII claims, and state tort claims; the district court granted Volvo summary judgment on all counts and awarded Volvo costs.
The Seventh Circuit reversed summary judgment on USERRA and ADA discrimination claims, affirmed the other rulings, and vacated the costs award as premature; case remanded for further proceedings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
USERRA discrimination: Was Arroyo’s military service a motivating factor in her termination?	Volvo’s supervisors repeatedly expressed frustration with her military absences and treated travel/leave as burdensome; those comments and the timing of discipline create a "convincing mosaic" permitting inference of animus.	Volvo contends it lawfully accommodated leave, followed attendance policy, and would have fired Arroyo for repeated tardiness regardless of military status.	Reversed summary judgment: jury issues exist whether military service was a motivating factor and whether Volvo would have made the same decision absent service.
ADA discrimination: Did PTSD cause termination ("but-for" causation)?	Management made negative remarks about her absences and joked about her ER visit; timing of intensified discipline after return and PTSD diagnosis supports inference of discrimination.	Volvo argues discipline was for punctuality violations and that it provided accommodations, so termination was for legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons.	Reversed summary judgment: sufficient circumstantial evidence and temporal nexus to create triable issue of whether disability was a but-for cause.
Failure-to-accommodate & interactive process	Arroyo contends some requested accommodations were denied or delayed and Volvo’s conduct was grudging.	Volvo shows it granted many accommodations, was considering others, and engaged in the interactive process; Arroyo was sometimes uncooperative.	Affirmed summary judgment for Volvo: no genuine dispute that Volvo provided reasonable accommodations and engaged in the process.
Retaliation / Intentional infliction of emotional distress / Costs award	Arroyo argues discipline followed her internal/EEOC complaints and that employer conduct was extreme and outrageous; costs award improper given appeal.	Volvo argues protected activity post-dated most discipline and conduct did not meet IIED standard; entitlement to costs as prevailing party.	Affirmed summary judgment on retaliation and IIED (insufficient causal link and not "extreme and outrageous"); vacated costs award as premature (district court may reconsider after final resolution).

Key Cases Cited

Malin v. Hospira, Inc., 762 F.3d 552 (7th Cir. 2014) (summary-judgment evidence viewed in favor of nonmoving party)
Adams v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 324 F.3d 935 (7th Cir. 2003) ("convincing mosaic" approach to discriminatory motive)
Crews v. City of Mt. Vernon, 567 F.3d 860 (7th Cir. 2009) (USERRA burden-shifting framework)
Velazquez-Garcia v. Horizon Lines of Puerto Rico, Inc., 473 F.3d 11 (1st Cir. 2006) (employer must prove it would have taken same action absent military service)
Hobgood v. Illinois Gaming Bd., 731 F.3d 635 (7th Cir. 2013) (timing and circumstantial evidence can support inference of discriminatory motive)
Serwatka v. Rockwell Automation, Inc., 591 F.3d 957 (7th Cir. 2010) (ADA requires "but-for" causation for discrimination claims)
Maxfield v. Cintas Corp. No. 2, 427 F.3d 544 (8th Cir. 2005) (employer looking for reason to discharge reservist can support USERRA claim)
Troupe v. May Dept. Stores Co., 20 F.3d 734 (7th Cir. 1994) (direct and circumstantial proof routes for discrimination claims)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
Silk v. Board of Trustees, 795 F.3d 698 (7th Cir. 2015) (discussing ADA causation language post-amendment)