Perez v. Transformer Manufacturers, Inc., 35 F. Supp. 3d 941

Perez, a 60-year-old hand winder for TMI, injured his right hand on June 23, 2009 and returned with restrictions limiting lifting and gripping.
TMI continued to pay Perez but assigned limited tasks; he could not perform the essential functions of a hand winder due to ongoing restrictions.
Perez was placed on vacation after initial restrictions and later terminated January 25, 2010; prior to termination, workers’ comp claim was denied and Perez remained disabled.
Ortiz allegedly told Perez he was “old,” “useless,” and that he would not be allowed to work until fully recovered; Perez alleges a hostile response to his disability and age.
Perez filed a workers’ compensation claim in August 2009 and an Illinois human rights discrimination charge in October 2009; TMI paid short-term disability through January 2010.
The court granted summary judgment for TMI on all counts, concluding Perez could not establish he was a qualified individual, that there were no viable light-duty vacancies, and that there was no adequate evidence of causation for retaliation or Illinois common-law retaliatory discharge.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
ADA: Was Perez a qualified individual with a disability?	Perez argues he cannot perform hand-winder duties but could be reassigned to light duty.	Perez cannot perform essential functions and no evidence shows vacant, qualified light-duty positions.	Perez not qualified; summary judgment for TMI on Counts I-II.
ADA: Was there a reasonable accommodation or reassignment?	Employer had to reassign to a vacant light-duty position.	No vacant, comparable positions; employer not obligated to create or tailor a job.	No viable reassignment; no genuine dispute on reasonable accommodation; affirm summary judgment.
ADEA/ADA retaliation: Was there causation between protected activity and termination?	Termination followed filing of discrimination charge and age-related remarks support retaliation.	Timing not sufficient; isolated remarks and lack of link to decision-maker undermine causation.	No sufficient nexus; summary judgment on retaliation claims.
Illinois common-law retaliatory discharge: Was discharge causally related to workers’ compensation claim?	Discharge occurred after workers’ comp claim; protected activity related to denial.	No evidence of improper motivation; denial and later events weaken causal link.	No causal connection; summary judgment for TMI on Count VII.

Povey v. City of Jeffersonville, Ind., 697 F.3d 619 (7th Cir.2012) (burden of proof for but-for causation in retaliation cases right at summary judgment)
Gratzl v. Office of the Chief Judges of the 12th, 18th, 19th, and 22nd Judicial Circuits, 601 F.3d 674 (7th Cir.2010) (limits on reassignment as reasonable accommodation)
Jackson v. City of Chicago, 414 F.3d 806 (7th Cir.2005) (definition of qualified individual and reasonable accommodation)
E.E.O.C. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 417 F.3d 789 (7th Cir.2005) (ADA requires reasonable accommodations to known limitations)
Fleishman v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 698 F.3d 598 (7th Cir.2012) (but-for causation standard for retaliation under ADA/ADEA)
Bardon v. Zimmer, Inc., 662 F.3d 448 (7th Cir.2011) (remedies problem in discrimination context)
Hobgood v. Ill. Gaming Bd., 731 F.3d 635 (7th Cir.2013) (causation and protected activity in retaliation analysis)
Market v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Wis. Sys., 276 F.3d 906 (7th Cir.2002) (timing of protected activity and adverse action in retaliation cases)
Merillat v. Metal Spinners, Inc., 470 F.3d 685 (7th Cir.2006) (isolated comments insufficient to prove discriminatory motive)
Griffin v. Potter, 356 F.3d 824 (7th Cir.2004) (adverse action must significantly alter terms and conditions of employment)