998 F. Supp. 2d 750
W.D. Wis.2014Background
- Walters, a Mayo-Eau Claire employee since 1998, alleged ADA disability discrimination and FMLA interference/retaliation; she had mental health history (anxiety, depression, PTSD) and a 2010-2011 decline in performance.
- In Oct 2010 Walters was promoted to Perioperative Nurse Supervisor but demoted in Dec 2010 to staff nurse and later terminated in Apr 2011 amid attendance issues.
- Mayo-Eau Claire administered FMLA and attendance policies; FMLA leaves are not counted as absences for attendance, and an informal/interactive process for accommodations was claimed to be absent.
- October 5-6, 2010: Walters left work due to an anxiety episode; supervisor discussed discipline and advised possible FMLA; Walters received a written warning on Oct 6, 2010 for attendance/clock-in issues.
- Walters later used intermittent FMLA in 2010; she contends she couldn’t or didn’t request further leave due to anxiety, while Mayo argued the actions were for attendance violations, not FMLA violations.
- Walters claimed supervisors knew of her mental health deterioration; several contemporaneous notes documented agitation, sleep issues, and weight loss; Walters argued parallel discipline for others without disabilities, and that the decision to discipline preceded her FMLA request.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Walters' FMLA warning interfered with FMLA rights | Walters contends the Oct 6, 2010 warning correlated with FMLA activation and hindered FMLA protections. | Warning was for attendance/clocking issues, not for FMLA leave; it was not tied to FMLA eligibility. | Question of fact; interference claim allowed to proceed. |
| Whether Walters established ADA failure to accommodate | Employer failed to engage in interactive process and consider accommodations beyond intermittent FMLA. | No explicit accommodation request; no duty to engage absent a request. | Material factual disputes exist; ADA failure to accommodate survives summary judgment. |
| Whether Walters established ADA discrimination | Discipline/termination were influenced by Walters' disability and related distress. | Discipline based on attendance problems; Walters' performance issues justified actions. | Genuine issues of material fact exist; cannot grant summary judgment on discrimination. |
| Whether Walters was a qualified individual with a disability | With accommodations, Walters could perform essential functions; mental health issues were manageable with support. | Aruges she could not perform essential functions due to attendance issues. | Issues of fact remain regarding qualification and accommodation viability. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pagel v. TIN, Inc., 695 F.3d 622 (7th Cir. 2012) (distinguishing interference from retaliation under FMLA)
- Morgan v. SVT, LLC, 724 F.3d 990 (7th Cir. 2013) (suspicious timing is rarely enough for retaliation)
- Benuzzi v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Chi, 647 F.3d 652 (7th Cir. 2011) (written warnings generally not a materially adverse action)
- Gogos v. AMS Mech. Sys., Inc., 737 F.3d 1170 (7th Cir. 2013) (broad ADA coverage; disability can be episodic or in remission)
- Serwatka v. Rockwell Automation, Inc., 591 F.3d 957 (7th Cir. 2010) (direct method and McDonnell Douglas framework for ADA discrimination)
- James v. Hyatt Regency Chi., 707 F.3d 775 (7th Cir. 2013) (interactive process and accommodation duties when mental illness involved)
- Bultemeyer v. Fort Wayne Cmty. Schools, 100 F.3d 1281 (7th Cir. 1996) (interactive process due to mental illness recognized)