Nancie Cloe v. City of Indianapolis
712 F.3d 1171
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Nancie Cloe was hired by the City of Indianapolis in 2007 as an Unsafe Buildings/Nuisance Abatement Project Manager and diagnosed with MS in 2008, becoming disabled.
- Her job increasingly shifted to desk duty due to MS-related limitations, including walking difficulties, vision and concentration issues, and memory problems.
- Starting in 2008–2009, Cloe faced discipline and performance issues from her supervisor Winfield, culminating in a 2009 disciplinary notice and a June 2009 termination.
- Cloe alleged the City failed to reasonably accommodate her disability (parking, printer access, proofreading assistance) and also claimed ADA retaliation and discriminatory termination.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the City on accommodation claims, but the Seventh Circuit reversed on retaliation and discrimination, remanding for further proceedings. The parking accommodation involved a sequence of parking options culminating in a permanent underground spot opened in December 2008.
- The court treated reasonable accommodation as an interactive process and concluded the City engaged in such a process; however, it found potential issues with the discrimination claim due to forfeiture but remanded for lack of notice and to allow full development of evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasonable accommodation adequacy for parking | Cloe argues the City delayed or failed to provide near parking as required. | City asserts interactive process yielded reasonable accommodations and delays were not unreasonable. | Summary judgment upheld on accommodation claim; process was reasonable. |
| Reasonable accommodation adequacy for in-office printer | Delay in providing an in-office printer was unreasonable. | Employer exercised discretion to choose a reasonable accommodation and delays were not unreasonable. | Summary judgment upheld on this accommodation claim. |
| Reasonable accommodation for proofreading help | Lack of proofreading assistance related to disability harmed her performance. | She did not request an accommodation for written work. | Summary judgment upheld; no accommodation request proven. |
| ADA retaliation | Discipline and termination were motivated by ADA-protected accommodations requests. | Termination based on performance and conduct; no retaliation. | Summary judgment avoided; evidence could support causal link; remand on retaliation claim. |
| ADA discrimination (indirect method) and pretext | Discriminatory termination shown via prima facie case and pretext evidence. | Discrimination argument not properly raised below; forfeiture and lack of pretext evidence. | Remanded for development; court held forfeiture prevented decision on discrimination; remand appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fleishman v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 698 F.3d 598 (7th Cir. 2012) (exceptions to the normal rule that a disability must be known for accommodation duties)
- Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Commodities, 417 F.3d 789 (7th Cir. 2005) (interactive process required for accommodations)
- Ekstrand v. School Dist. of Somerset, 583 F.3d 972 (7th Cir. 2009) (must corroborate disability with doctor’s note for accommodations)
- Gile v. United Airlines, Inc., 213 F.3d 365 (7th Cir. 2000) (interactive process to determine accommodations)
- Dickerson v. Bd. of Trs. of Cmty. Coll. Dist. No. 522, 657 F.3d 595 (7th Cir. 2011) (direct vs indirect methods for retaliation proof)
- Bray v. Bray, 681 F.3d 901 (7th Cir. 2012) (mosaic of circumstantial evidence for retaliation)
- Coleman v. Donahoe, 667 F.3d 835 (7th Cir. 2012) (importance of decision-maker identity in comparator analysis)
- St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (U.S. 1993) (pretext framework in McDonnell Douglas method)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (framework for indirect discrimination proving)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standards; burden on movant)
- Anderson v. Gulf Stream Coach, Inc., 662 F.3d 775 (7th Cir. 2011) (forfeiture and notice in summary judgment context)
- Costello v. Grundon, 651 F.3d 614 (7th Cir. 2011) (nonmovant not required to present evidence on issues not raised by movant)
- Kellar v. Summit Seating Inc., 664 F.3d 169 (7th Cir. 2011) (forfeiture and notice standards in summary judgment)