O'FLAHERTY v. ASCENSION HEALTH IS, INC., 1:20-cv-02400

John O'Flaherty was Senior Director of Clinical Products at Ascension (June 2018–Oct. 2019), supervising Clinical Imaging staff.
A database "Consolidation Project" for imaging records was rolled out Oct. 15, 2019 and caused severe patient-care and performance problems; remediation took about a year.
O'Flaherty concedes he lacked knowledge of the Consolidation Project after Feb. 2019 and did not supervise the team that completed it; others (including Rachel Brewton and Richard Adams) were involved without O'Flaherty's awareness.
After learning of O'Flaherty's noninvolvement and what she perceived as failures of oversight and honesty, VP LeMaistre and CIO Lewis decided to terminate him; the decision was made between Oct. 22–30, 2019 and communicated Oct. 30, 2019.
O'Flaherty has a disability (hepatic encephalopathy) and submitted an FMLA request on Oct. 21, 2019; decision-makers were unaware of his disability or the FMLA request before his termination; the FMLA request was later approved post-termination.
Procedural posture: Ascension moved for summary judgment; the court granted judgment for Ascension and dismissed O'Flaherty's ADA and FMLA claims with prejudice (ADEA and Title VII claims were abandoned).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
ADA discrimination	O'Flaherty says he was fired because of his disability and/or FMLA request; termination was pretextual.	Ascension says termination was for legitimate, non-discriminatory reason: failure to know/manage the Consolidation Project.	Court: Grants summary judgment to Ascension; plaintiff failed to ID non-disabled comparators and failed to show pretext.
ADA & FMLA retaliation	O'Flaherty contends timing of FMLA request and termination shows retaliation.	Ascension says timing was driven by rollout failure and leadership review, and decision‑makers did not know of disability/FMLA.	Court: Grants summary judgment to Ascension; timing and evidence do not support causal link.
FMLA interference	O'Flaherty alleges Ascension interfered with his FMLA rights by terminating him.	Ascension maintains he would have been terminated irrespective of leave because of management failures.	Court: Grants summary judgment to Ascension; plaintiff did not rebut employer's nondiscriminatory justification.

McDonnell Douglas v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (framework for burden‑shifting in discrimination claims)
Ortiz v. Werner Enters., 834 F.3d 760 (7th Cir. 2016) (net assessment: whether protected trait caused the adverse action)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (purpose of summary judgment inquiry)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (standard for evaluating evidence on summary judgment)
Dickerson v. Bd. of Trs., 657 F.3d 595 (7th Cir. 2011) (application of McDonnell Douglas to ADA claims)
O'Leary v. Accretive Health, Inc., 657 F.3d 625 (7th Cir. 2011) (employer's honest belief about employee misconduct can defeat pretext claim)
Cracco v. Vitran Express, Inc., 559 F.3d 625 (7th Cir. 2009) (elements of an FMLA interference claim)
McClendon v. Ind. Sugars, Inc., 108 F.3d 789 (7th Cir. 1997) (close timing alone insufficient to show pretext when other non‑suspicious reasons exist)
Loudermilk v. Best Pallet Co., LLC, 636 F.3d 312 (7th Cir. 2011) (suspicious timing may support inference of retaliation in narrow circumstances)