Terri Basden v. Professional Transportation
714 F.3d 1034
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Basden sued Professional Transportation, Inc. (PTI) in the Seventh Circuit for alleged ADA and FMLA violations after being terminated from PTI’s 24/7 ground-transport dispatch business.
- PTI’s attendance policy counts four-hour absences as an incident, with escalating consequences culminating in termination after eight incidents.
- Basden had prior absences in 2007 with undetermined causes.
- In 2008 Basden had multiple absences: Jan 14–17 (third incident), Feb 1 (fourth), Mar 13–15 (fifth), and Apr 7–14 (sixth), each supported by medical notes; she requested accommodations and a MS specialist appointment.
- Basden requested a 30-day unpaid leave in May 2008 due to MS; the leave was denied and Basden was terminated after failing to return following a suspension.
- The district court granted summary judgment for PTI, concluding Basden failed to raise a genuine issue on both ADA and FMLA claims; Basden appealed, and the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADA: Was Basden qualified for the job with or without accommodation? | Basden was disabled and could be accommodated. | Regular attendance is essential; Basden could not perform with accommodations. | No; Basden not qualified for ADA purposes. |
| ADA: Did PTI engage in a required interactive accommodation process? | PTI failed to engage in interactive process. | No absolute requirement; outcome unaffected if not able to perform with accommodation. | Failure to engage is not independently liable where no evidence Basden could be accommodated. |
| Evidence of ability to return to work with treatment? | Medication and prior employment show potential return. | Evidence insufficient to show regular attendance possible at termination. | Insufficient to show Basden could regularly attend at time of termination. |
| FMLA eligibility: Does lack of 12 months preclude relief for an ineligible employee seeking leave? | N/A | Ineligible employees cannot receive FMLA protections. | District court correctly granted summary judgment on FMLA claim. |
| Overall propriety of summary judgment on ADA and FMLA claims? | Qualified issue and process shortcomings raised facts for trial. | No triable issues given record showing non-qualifying attendance. | affirmed district court’s summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Weigel v. Target Stores, 122 F.3d 461 (7th Cir. 1997) (evidence must support likelihood of return to work with treatment)
- Beck v. Univ. of Wis. Bd. of Regents, 75 F.3d 1130 (7th Cir. 1996) (interactive process required for accommodation)
- Ammons v. Aramark Uniform Servs., Inc., 368 F.3d 809 (7th Cir. 2004) (plaintiff must show ability to perform essential functions with accommodation)
- EEOC v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 253 F.3d 943 (7th Cir. 2001) (regular attendance can be an essential job requirement)
- Haschmann v. Time Warner Entm’t Co., 151 F.3d 591 (7th Cir. 1998) (pre-diagnosis leave predictions differ from present case facts)
- Rehling v. City of Chicago, 207 F.3d 1009 (7th Cir. 2000) (failure to engage in interactive process is not automatic liability)
- Walker v. Elmore County Bd. of Educ., 379 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir. 2004) (leave requested before eligibility is not protected by FMLA)