Russell Pontinen v. United States Steel Corporati
26 F.4th 401
7th Cir.2022Background
- Russell Pontinen applied for a safety‑critical Utility Person job at U.S. Steel’s Midwest Plant; the position involves torches, molten metal, heavy/mobile equipment, and other hazardous tasks.
- Pontinen has a history of 3–4 seizures over decades; he previously achieved control on Depakote but in 2017 insisted on discontinuing it despite his neurologist’s warning.
- Pre‑employment fitness exam disclosed his seizure history; treating neurologist’s notes, a normal EEG, the DOT medical guidance, and the exam informed USS medical staff.
- USS medical staff (a nurse practitioner and the medical director) imposed work restrictions (no work >5 ft, no hazardous machinery, no cranes/mobile equipment, medical approval before job change).
- HR determined the restrictions were not reasonably accommodatable for the Utility Person role and rescinded the job offer; Pontinen sued under the ADA and lost at summary judgment in district court.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed: it found USS relied on adequate evidence, performed an individualized assessment, concluded Pontinen’s seizure disorder was uncontrolled, and that he posed a direct threat to himself and others.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of medical evidence used to assess risk | Pontinen argued medical decision rested on errors/mischaracterizations and insufficient evidence | USS relied on health inventory, exam notes, neurologist records/notes, EEG, and DOT guidance | Court held medical decision rested on adequate, objective evidence and reasonable medical judgment |
| Individualized assessment vs. categorical exclusion | Pontinen said he was categorically disqualified based on stereotypes about seizures | USS said restrictions were tailored to Pontinen’s specific history and conduct (stopping meds, neurologist notes) | Court held assessment was individualized, not purely categorical |
| Whether Pontinen’s seizure disorder was "controlled" | Pontinen argued he had been seizure‑free for years, had neurologist oversight when tapering, and had a normal EEG | USS pointed to neurologist’s notes that condition was only controlled while on meds and that Pontinen insisted on stopping treatment, raising his risk | Court held undisputed evidence showed the disorder was uncontrolled at application time |
| Whether USS met its burden to show a direct threat under the ADA | Pontinen argued risk was low because he sometimes gets a brief warning signal before seizures and had long seizure‑free intervals | USS argued the job’s high hazard, indefinite duration of increased risk, likelihood and potential severity of harm made him a direct threat | Court held all direct‑threat factors favored USS and affirmed summary judgment for the employer |
Key Cases Cited
- Darnell v. Thermafiber, Inc., 417 F.3d 657 (7th Cir. 2005) (summary judgment review and direct‑threat precedent)
- Branham v. Snow, 392 F.3d 896 (7th Cir. 2004) (employer bears burden to show qualification standard prevents direct threat)
- Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Echazabal, 536 U.S. 73 (2002) (direct‑threat defense may justify excluding employee to protect self)
- Bekker v. Humana Health Plan, Inc., 229 F.3d 662 (7th Cir. 2000) (testimonial evidence can supply objective support for medical findings)
- Stragapede v. City of Evanston, 865 F.3d 861 (7th Cir. 2017) (direct‑threat factors and methodology)
- Emerson v. N. States Power Co., 256 F.3d 506 (7th Cir. 2001) (direct‑threat analysis)
- Bates v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 511 F.3d 974 (9th Cir. 2007) (distinguishing qualified individual and qualification standards)
- EEOC v. Rexnord Indus., LLC, 966 F. Supp. 2d 829 (E.D. Wis. 2013) (discussing duration of risk in seizure cases)
- Kinney Shoe Corp., 917 F. Supp. 419 (W.D. Va. 1996) (contrasting view on seizure duration/risk)