Mary Stelter v. Wisconsin Physicians Service, 950 F.3d 488

Stelter worked for Wisconsin Physicians Service (WPS), promoted to agency sales representative; duties included supporting agency managers and selling large-group insurance products.
Prior to her 2014 workplace injury, supervisors documented repeated problems: leaving for personal appointments during work hours and weak knowledge of large-group products.
Stelter injured her back at work in February 2014, took approved leave, and was cleared to return with no restrictions in April 2014.
In June–September 2014 WPS placed Stelter on a performance-improvement plan; supervisor Harings documented ongoing absenteeism, failure to seek training, and failure to follow directions; Harings recommended termination.
WPS terminated Stelter on December 10, 2014, citing a pattern of absenteeism and deficiencies; Stelter sued under the ADA for discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation.
The district court granted summary judgment for WPS; the Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding no genuine dispute of material fact supporting Stelter’s ADA claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Stelter was a "qualified individual" under the ADA	Stelter argued her back injury was a disability and she could perform essential functions with accommodation	WPS argued Stelter was not qualified due to preexisting performance/attendance problems unrelated to disability	Court: Not qualified — performance and attendance deficiencies (documented before injury) defeat qualification element
Whether termination was due to disability (discrimination/pretext)	Stelter argued termination was pretextual and actually caused by disability	WPS argued honest belief in termination reasons (absenteeism, poor performance); reasons predate injury	Court: No pretext; reasons were consistent, predated injury, so disability was not the "but-for" cause
Failure to accommodate / interactive process	Stelter alleged WPS failed to provide accommodations (sit-stand desk, flexible appointments, driving limits)	WPS argued Stelter did not request these accommodations or engage in the interactive process	Court: Summary judgment for WPS — Stelter did not request accommodations or show employer denied a requested accommodation
Causation standard for ADA adverse action	Stelter contended disability caused adverse action	WPS maintained termination was for non-discriminatory reasons	Court: Termination was an adverse action but Stelter failed to show disability was the but-for cause

Kopplin v. Wis. Cent. Ltd., 914 F.3d 1099 (summary-judgment standard reviewed de novo)
O'Leary v. Accretive Health, Inc., 657 F.3d 625 (view record in nonmovant's favor on summary judgment)
Roberts v. City of Chicago, 817 F.3d 561 (ADA elements for discrimination claim)
Hammel v. Eau Galle Cheese Factory, 407 F.3d 852 (ADA does not protect unqualified employees for non-disability reasons)
Boumehdi v. Plastag Holdings, LLC, 489 F.3d 781 (pretext requires showing employer's stated reason was not honest belief)
Hnin v. TOA (USA), LLC, 751 F.3d 499 (focus on employer's honest belief in its termination reason)
Waggoner v. Olin Corp., 169 F.3d 481 (attendance can be an essential job requirement not protected by ADA)
A.H. by Holzmueller v. Ill. High Sch. Ass'n, 881 F.3d 587 ("but-for" causation required under ADA)
Spurling v. C&M Fine Pack, Inc., 739 F.3d 1055 (interactive process requirement for accommodations)
Preddie v. Bartholomew Consol. Sch. Corp., 799 F.3d 806 (plaintiff typically must request an accommodation)