530 F. App'x 593
7th Cir.2013Background
- Sanders, a non-disabled CMS employee, was terminated for repeatedly refusing a psychiatric evaluation for fitness for duty.
- CMS argued the evaluation was needed because Sanders allegedly threatened his supervisor, to protect workplace safety.
- The Illinois Civil Service Commission ruled CMS acted unreasonably by not investigating the alleged threat; another state agency found insufficient threat evidence.
- Sanders sued in federal court under ADA § 12112(d)(4)(A), alleging the mandatory exam was not job-related or consistent with business necessity.
- The district court allowed a non-disabled plaintiff to pursue the § 12112(d) claim, noting other circuits permit it; trial proceeded on job-relatedness/necessity based on the threat.
- The jury found the psychiatric evaluation was job-related; Sanders challenged recusal, collateral estoppel, sufficiency, and waiver issues on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May a non-disabled plaintiff sue under § 12112(d)? | Sanders argues § 12112(d) allows non-disabled suits. | CMS contends standing requires disability. | Yes; non-disabled may pursue § 12112(d) claim. |
| Does collateral estoppel apply to the ADA claim from the CSC decision? | CSC finding of no specific threat forecloses ADA claim. | Different questions—good cause vs. discrimination—collateral estoppel applies. | Collateral estoppel does not apply. |
| Was sufficient evidence shown that the evaluation was job-related? | MSJ post-verdict not filed; argument not preserved. | Evidence supports job-relatedness; post-verdict motion unnecessary. | Challenge waived; no post-verdict JMOL. |
| Recusal and waiver-related issues; were state-law confidentiality claims preserved or precluded? | Recusal raised as grounds for reversal; confidentiality claims raised on appeal. | Waivers and lack of mandamus review prevent reversal; confidentiality waived. | Recusal and confidentiality issues rejected; state-law issue denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- O'Neal v. City of New Albany, 293 F.3d 998 (7th Cir.2002) (addressed standing under § 12112(d) for non-disabled plaintiffs)
- Kroll v. White Lake Ambulance Auth., 691 F.3d 809 (6th Cir.2012) (non-disabled plaintiff may sue under § 12112(d))
- Cossette v. Minn. Power & Light, 188 F.3d 964 (8th Cir.1999) (non-disabled standing under § 12112(d))
- Fredenburg v. Contra Costa Cnty. Dep’t of Health Servs., 172 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir.1999) (comparison of disability discrimination standards across circuits)
- Griffin v. Steeltek, Inc., 160 F.3d 591 (10th Cir.1998) (interpretation of § 12112(d) scope)
- Coffman v. Indianapolis Fire Dep’t, 578 F.3d 559 (7th Cir.2009) (collateral estoppel relevance in ADA context)
- Nowak v. St. Rita High Sch., 197 Ill.2d 381 (Ill. 2001) (Ill. collateral estoppel principles)
- Edmonds v. Ill. Workers’ Comp. Comm’n, 968 N.E.2d 775 (App.Ct.2012) (fairness in applying collateral estoppel)
- James v. Hyatt Regency Chicago, 707 F.3d 775 (7th Cir.2013) (waiver and procedural default principles)
- Abuelyaman v. Ill. State Univ., 667 F.3d 800 (7th Cir.2011) (equitable dimensions of waiver in appeals)