Marc Shell v. Kevin Smith
789 F.3d 715
7th Cir.2015Background
- Shell worked as a Mechanic’s Helper at CATS for 12 years without a CDL due to hearing/vision impairments.
- The job description allowed occasional bus driving but a CDL was required to drive CATS buses.
- A new general manager, Blackwell, terminated Shell when he did not obtain a CDL as demanded by the job description.
- Shell sued the City under the ADA for failure to accommodate, leading to termination.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the City; on appeal, Shell challenges only the ADA claim.
- The Seventh Circuit vacated the judgment, holding a jury must decide whether driving a bus was an essential function and remanded for trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is driving a bus an essential function of the Mechanic’s Helper? | Shell contends driving is not essential; CDL not required for the role. | City contends driving is an essential function; CDL is a job-related requirement. | Not decided at summary judgment; issue must go to a jury. |
Key Cases Cited
- EEOC v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 417 F.3d 789 (7th Cir. 2005) (definition of a qualified individual; reasonable accommodation)
- Baert v. Euclid Beverage, Ltd., 149 F.3d 626 (7th Cir. 1998) (conflicting evidence on essential function precluded summary judgment)
- Winfrey v. City of Chicago, 259 F.3d 610 (7th Cir. 2001) (modified task approach; not definitive proof of essential duties)
- Basith v. Cook County, 241 F.3d 919 (7th Cir. 2001) (previously created non-delivery role does not prove non-essential function)
- Miller v. Illinois Dep’t of Transp., 643 F.3d 190 (7th Cir. 2011) (employer’s judgment not controlling; consider other § 1630.2(n) factors)
- DePaoli v. Abbott Labs., 140 F.3d 668 (7th Cir. 1998) (employer practices and duties considered; not just job description)