98 F. Supp. 3d 946
N.D. Ill.2015Background
- Sansone, a wheelchair user with multiple sclerosis, worked for the Postal Service for over 30 years and supervised maintenance at the Forest Park BMC.
- He previously had a reserved parking space next to the BMC and a ramp-accessible entry, which the Postal Service revoked in 2011 following OSHA concerns about safety near docks and moving vehicles.
- Sansone contends the revocation without a guaranteed alternative accommodation deprived him of access to the facility and violated the Rehabilitation Act; the Postal Service argues the space was unsafe and offered other accommodations.
- Branch, the Plant Manager, directed Sansone to park in general handicap spaces or in the MV Office area, rather than maintain his prior reserved space near the western dock and in proximity to an accessible entrance.
- Sansone communicated specific needs (ample space to deploy his ramp and an accessible entrance) and sought an automatic door accommodation; the Postal Service proposed alternatives but Sansone deemed them insufficient.
- Sansone ultimately resigned and pursued disability retirement in October 2011; he filed suit alleging failure to accommodate and constructive discharge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to engage in interactive process before revoking accommodation | Sansone argues the Postal Service violated ADA by revoking without interactive discussion. | Donahoe contends there was no obligation to delay revocation when space was unsafe. | Not dispositive; genuine issues remain about adequacy of accommodation |
| Abandonment of interactive process and availability of substitute accommodations | Postal Service never offered a reasonably accommodation meeting Sansone's needs. | Service argued Sansone abandoned the process; offered reasonable accommodation options. | Summary judgment denied on failure-to-accommodate; issue for jury |
| Damages for failure to accommodate | Sansone may recover back pay, benefits, or other damages for failure to accommodate before resignation. | Good-faith defense under 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(a)(3) limits damages where accommodation was attempted in good faith. | Damages may be available; fact-finder must assess good-faith efforts |
| Constructive discharge | Working conditions were intolerable due to ongoing accommodation dispute. | There were temporary options and a willingness to continue discussions; resignation premature. | Sansone fails to show intolerable conditions; constructive discharge denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Ekstrand v. Sch. Dist. of Somerset, 583 F.3d 972 (7th Cir.2009) (interactive process and qualified individual analysis)
- EEOC v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 233 F.3d 432 (7th Cir.2000) (constructive discharge framework and intolerable conditions standard)
- Cloe v. City of Indianapolis, 712 F.3d 1171 (7th Cir.2013) (employer not required to provide exact accommodation but must be reasonable)
- Bunn v. Khoury Enters., Inc., 753 F.3d 676 (7th Cir.2014) (no separate cause of action for failure of interactive process)
- Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187 (U.S. 1996) (remedies in Title VII context; good faith consideration)
- Mannie v. Potter, 394 F.3d 977 (7th Cir.2005) (good-faith provision as exclusive remedy for disability discrimination in federal agencies)
- Isbell v. Crane, Inc., 30 F. Supp. 3d 725 (N.D. Ill. 2014) (revocation of preexisting accommodation; district court view (note: district court authority))
- Feldman v. American Memorial Life Ins. Co., 196 F.3d 783 (7th Cir.1999) (illustrative contrast on disability and accommodation context)