Spurling v. C & M Fine Pack, Inc., 739 F.3d 1055

Background

Kimberly Spurling worked third/night shift at C & M Fine Pack; beginning in 2009 she exhibited episodes of excessive drowsiness and received progressive discipline, including a suspension.
On April 15, 2010, management issued a Final Warning/Suspension and told Spurling she could present additional information before a termination decision.
On April 16 Spurling told HR she might have a medical condition and was given ADA forms to have her doctor complete; HR emailed higher-ups recommending termination but noted it would put her on leave while the process proceeded.
On April 21 Dr. Beitzel completed the ADA form, marked that Spurling had a disability (excessive drowsiness/narcolepsy) and recommended scheduled rest and further workup; Spurling returned the form to HR that day.
C & M decided to terminate Spurling and notified her on April 28; she received a definitive narcolepsy diagnosis on May 27, 2010.
Spurling sued under the ADA (discrimination, failure to engage in the interactive process, failure to accommodate) and the FMLA; the district court granted summary judgment to C & M on both claims, ruling termination occurred April 15 before employer knowledge of the disability.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Termination date — when was Spurling fired for ADA causation purposes?	April 28 was the effective termination date because C & M learned of her disability April 21 and gave unequivocal notice April 28.	Termination was effectively April 15 (suspension pending termination reflected final decision) so employer lacked knowledge of disability.	Reversed district court: termination occurred April 28 (unequivocal notice); employer knew of disability before firing.
Failure to engage in the ADA interactive process / failure to accommodate	C & M failed to meaningfully engage with Spurling or her physician after receiving medical form and thus did not explore reasonable accommodations.	C & M claims progressive discipline sufficed and that it reasonably concluded accommodation was not warranted given safety/performance concerns.	Reversed district court: triable issue exists — C & M did not adequately pursue the interactive process; reasonable accommodation (medical workup/medication/scheduled rests) was plausibly available.
FMLA notice — did Spurling give sufficient notice to trigger FMLA protections?	Her April 16 statement that she needed time off to figure out why she was falling asleep sufficed to put employer on notice of a serious health condition.	The statement was vague and did not communicate a serious health condition or need for FMLA leave; employer was not required to investigate.	Affirmed district court: Spurling’s April 16 remark was insufficient to notify C & M of an FMLA-qualifying serious health condition.
Employer knowledge requirement for ADA liability where disability unknown	Once employer knows of disability (April 21), ADA obligations attach and employer must engage the interactive process.	Employer argued lack of knowledge at decision time defeated ADA claim.	Court restated that lack of knowledge defeats ADA claims, but here employer knew before final notice, so ADA obligations applied.

Key Cases Cited

Hedberg v. Indiana Bell Tel. Co., Inc., 47 F.3d 928 (7th Cir. 1995) (no ADA liability where employer had no knowledge of disability)
Dvorak v. Mostardi Platt Assoc., Inc., 289 F.3d 479 (7th Cir. 2002) ("unequivocal notice of termination" test for termination date)
Flannery v. Recording Indus. Ass'n of Am., 354 F.3d 632 (7th Cir. 2004) (termination date requires final decision and unequivocal notice)
Hendricks-Robinson v. Excel Corp., 154 F.3d 685 (7th Cir. 1998) (employer liability triggered after employee notifies employer of disability)
E.E.O.C. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 417 F.3d 789 (7th Cir. 2005) (interactive process requirement under the ADA)
Basden v. Prof'l Transp., Inc., 714 F.3d 1034 (7th Cir. 2013) (failure to engage in interactive process actionable if it prevents identification of an appropriate accommodation)
Goelzer v. Sheboygan Cnty., Wis., 604 F.3d 987 (7th Cir. 2010) (elements to establish FMLA claim)
Aubuchon v. Knauf Fiberglass GmbH, 359 F.3d 950 (7th Cir. 2004) (employee must communicate FMLA ground; employer not required to investigate vague leave requests)