Sherlyn Brown v. Milwaukee Board of School Dire
855 F.3d 818
7th Cir.2017Background
- Sherlyn Brown, an assistant principal, suffered knee injuries and multiple surgeries; doctors imposed restrictions barring her from being "in the vicinity of potentially unruly students" and from participating in student-discipline situations.
- Milwaukee Public Schools (MPS) accommodated earlier limitations but concluded the doctor’s repeated, broad restriction precluded Brown from performing assistant principal duties or most vacant district positions because nearly all require student proximity.
- MPS and Brown (through meetings and communications via employment specialist James Gorton) repeatedly discussed reassignment options; MPS identified several vacant positions but rejected most as inconsistent with Brown’s medical restrictions.
- Brown applied for several positions (Student Achievement Supervisor, Student Services Coordinator, Charter School Program Officer, GE Grant Administrator, Title I Coordinator); MPS concluded four required proximity to potentially unruly students and that the Title I Coordinator would have been a promotion.
- After Brown’s three-year leave expired and MPS determined no available position fit her restrictions, MPS terminated her employment; Brown sued under the ADA claiming failure to accommodate and wrongful termination.
- The district court granted summary judgment for MPS; the Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding Brown failed to clarify or rebut the repeatedly communicated medical restriction and thus failed to carry her share of the interactive process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Brown was a "qualified individual" able to perform essential functions of assistant principal or other vacant positions | Brown: Her restrictions did not bar proximity to students; she could perform roles without controlling unruly students | MPS: Doctors’ repeated restriction barred proximity to potentially unruly students, so she could not perform essential functions that require student presence | Held: Brown repeatedly presented a broad restriction; she failed to clarify it, so she was not qualified for positions requiring student proximity |
| Whether MPS failed to engage in the interactive process to identify reasonable accommodations | Brown: MPS should have explored accommodations and reassigned her to vacant positions | MPS: MPS repeatedly sought clarification and reasonably relied on doctors’ restrictions; Brown did not provide information to alter that understanding | Held: MPS actively communicated and sought clarification; Brown failed to provide sufficient contrary information, so MPS did not fail the interactive process |
| Whether reassignment to vacant positions was a reasonable accommodation | Brown: Several listed vacancies were suitable and MPS should have reassigned her | MPS: Four vacancies required student proximity; the remaining (Title I Coordinator) was a promotion and not required as an accommodation | Held: Four positions were unavailable due to student-contact requirements; Title I Coordinator was a promotion MPS was not required to grant |
| Whether the ADA required MPS to promote Brown as an accommodation | Brown: Title I Coordinator was not a promotion (or should have been offered) | MPS: The Title I Coordinator entailed higher pay/grade, 12-month status, and greater responsibilities — a promotion; ADA does not require promotions | Held: The Coordinator would have been a promotion; ADA does not obligate employers to promote as an accommodation |
Key Cases Cited
- White v. City of Chicago, 829 F.3d 837 (7th Cir.) (summary-judgment standard on appeal)
- Miller v. Illinois Dep’t of Transportation, 643 F.3d 190 (7th Cir.) (employer must provide reasonable accommodations to qualified individuals)
- Emerson v. Northern States Power Co., 256 F.3d 506 (7th Cir.) (reassignment to vacant positions can be reasonable accommodation)
- EEOC v. United Airlines, Inc., 693 F.3d 760 (7th Cir.) (employee must be qualified for reassigned position)
- Malabarba v. Chicago Tribune Co., 149 F.3d 690 (7th Cir.) (employer not required to promote as accommodation)
- Stern v. St. Anthony’s Health Center, 788 F.3d 276 (7th Cir.) (interactive, flexible accommodation process required)
- Reeves v. Jewel Food Stores, Inc., 759 F.3d 698 (7th Cir.) (employee must provide sufficient information for employer to determine accommodations)
- Steffes v. Stepan Co., 144 F.3d 1070 (7th Cir.) (employee’s failure to clarify broad medical restriction can break the interactive process)
- Hemsworth v. Quotesmith.com, Inc., 476 F.3d 487 (7th Cir.) (non-moving party must identify evidence supporting claims at summary judgment)
- Dunderdale v. United Airlines, Inc., 807 F.3d 849 (7th Cir.) (factors for determining essential functions)
- Gile v. United Airlines, Inc., 95 F.3d 492 (7th Cir.) (reassignment should be to equivalent position)
- EEOC v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 417 F.3d 789 (7th Cir.) (employer must actively engage in interactive process; failure can create liability)
- Bultemeyer v. Fort Wayne Community Schools, 100 F.3d 1281 (7th Cir.) (employer’s failure to clarify ambiguous doctor’s note can be reversible error)
- Office of the Architect of the Capitol v. Office of Compliance, 361 F.3d 633 (Fed. Cir.) (moving an employee into a position normally paid at a higher grade can indicate a promotion)