*1 judge concluded that Jordan had not learned from his previous experiences
running Furthermore, afoul of the law.
even though conspiracy of which Jor-
dan part responsible was a for over kilograms cocaine, Jordan was held
accountable for less-from 50 to 150 kilo-
grams. We cannot find that his sentence
is unreasonable.
Accordingly, the imposed sentence
Ellis Lee Jordan is AFFIRMED. JOHNS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
Linda D. SERVICES,
LAIDLAW EDUCATION
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 06-1986.
United States Court of Appeals,
Seventh Circuit. Sept.
Submitted 2006.*
Decided Oct. 2006. * After an examination of the briefs and the submitted on the briefs and the record. See record, we have argu- concluded that oral 34(a)(2). R.App. Fed. P. Thus, unnecessary. appeal ment is *2 IL, accidents. pro in two work-related Johns, City, involved Linda D. Calumet April 2003 when The occurred first se. shoulder. Johns injured right her Johns Neal, Moeller, & Eisen- Chad W. Gerber for about a then as a bus monitor worked IL, Defendant-Appel- berg, Chicago, On her healed. her month while shoulder lee. driver, as a her bus to work day first back RIPPLE, Before Hon. KENNETH F. exacerbat- This accident was rear-ended. Judge, Circuit Hon. ILANA DIAMOND and existing injury, she ed her shoulder ROVNER, Judge, DIANE Ingram, Circuit Hon. S. Dr. sought from James treatment SYKES, Judge. per- Circuit surgeon. Ingram an Dr. orthopedic and, shoulder, surgery on Johns’
formed ORDER 2003, Ingram Dr. stated December day four a Johns could work for hours but by employed Linda Johns was Laidlaw could not drive a commercial vehicle. Education Services as a school bus driver. 17, 2003, May 4, through From December injured After twice her shoulder Johns 2004, variety in a of light worked Johns bus, driving while a Laidlaw her on placed Laidlaw. For the last positions at light duty a status as bus monitor. About a employment, few months her she was year injury, her a a after second doctor school monitor. bus, fit opined that Johns was to drive duty in and Laidlaw ordered her back to light duty, While on Johns underwent that capacity. Johns nevertheless refused January In several medical evaluations. own against because her doctor advised it. 2004, Ingram Dr. Laidlaw learned that Laidlaw then fired her. again driving had restricted Johns from vehicle and recommended has under commercial sued Laidlaw In (“ADA”), physical therapy. February, Laidlaw Act Americans Disabilities opin- referred Johns for a second medical seq. § 42 12101 In U.S.C. et the district court, ion with Dr. Brian Dr. Cole recom- argued by Cole. transferring she not undergo a functional job mended light duty her the available of bus evaluation, monitor, eventually capacity which she company had failed to accom- Laidlaw, According did. Dr. stat- Cole disability. modate her The court district ined 2004 could return to granted summary April that Johns judgment for Laidlaw. Dr. work full time as a bus driver. In- genuine Because Johns has raised issues of 2004; gram April also evaluated Johns in regarding fact material whether Laidlaw he diagnosed bicipital could tenodesis by reassign- have accommodated her “patient and stated that to continue with ing to a vacant bus monitor restriction,” a her current work reference the break- whether caused 24, 2004, to an evaluation dated March process, down we vacate restricting driving Johns from commer- of the court judgment district says cial vehicle. Laidlaw it did re- proceedings. remand for further Ingram’s report. ceive Dr. summary grant judg- We review novo, 4, 2004, construing ment de all facts and On told Johns eligible “no light longer inferences most favorable to letter that she was Bosch, duty” she Johns. See Cardoso Robert needed com- (7th Cir.2005). Corp., plete training 432 commercial drivers’ by May possibility Laidlaw hired Johns 2002 as a school or face the license 18 and, year, bus driver within a termination. The letter added that Laid- 570 Jackson, 12111(9)(B); § “not open [driving]
law did have routes to See U.S.C. 812-13; Henderson, bid on at this time” and that therefore F.3d Ozlowski v. be assigned Cir.2001); Johns “will a[bus] Dalton v. Auto., Inc., corresponds rate that with Subaru-Isuzu (7th Cir.1998). years seniority” driving [her] until An employer’s failure *3 Upon receiving routes were reassign employee available. to a to such disabled a letter, physi- position Johns told Laidlaw that her violates the ADA. Gile v. See Airlines, Inc., driving. 365, cian from still restricted her bus 213 United F.3d 374 Otherwise, (7th Cir.2000). she not did contact Laidlaw. fired May She was 18 for not submit- Johns adduced that has evidence ting bus-driving training. to permit reasonably would a factfinder to motion, summary judgment In its Laid- that bus conclude there was a vacant moni argued law first that Johns admitted she tor position Laidlaw for which she was perform could not essential functions qualified. was a monitor Johns bus for Second, driving argued of a bus. Laidlaw months, several does Laidlaw not obligation
that it had no to create a question job. that qualifications for position bus monitor for Johns. Moreover, May Laidlaw’s 4 letter —which Moreover, Laidlaw if it argued even assigned that “will” again states Johns be Johns, had failed to accommodate Johns position to bus driving a monitor until had a caused breakdown acknowledges routes became available — process not when she did contact Laidlaw positions open the existence of bus monitor May 4 warning after the that a she drive during very month it terminated her. bus or court face termination. The district It true that is Laidlaw does not have to agreed points on these temporary positions perma into convert granted judgment summary favor. its ones, Light nent see v. Watson Lithonia Industries, Inc., appeal, dispute On do & parties ing National Service (7th 749, Cir.2002), longer qualified that is no a bump Johns to drive 304 F.3d 751 argues jobs, bus. Johns instead that Laidlaw employees incumbent out of their see 2, should have by perma- accommodated her 237 at 841 n. abandon F.3d or Ozlowski nently to a reassigning job City bus monitor see v. prerequisites, Winfrey of 610, (7th position job performing Cir.2001); for Chicago, 259 F.3d 618 —the several months before she was terminated. Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n Inc., 1024, points May Humiston-Keeling, Laidlaw’s 4 letter as v. (7th Cir.2000). posi- that evidence there were bus monitor But Laidlaw has not 1028 positions tions available it stated that she that bus because asserted monitor assigned only occupied “will temporary, already be monitor the were a[bus] others, corresponds monitor rate or qualifications. [her] outside Johns’ years seniority” driving until routes Instead, “it argues that is in- were available. upon the Plaintiff to establish cumbent obligates employers
The ADA a vacant provide position Laidlaw had qualified qualified reasonable accommodation for which she was at the time of employees. City discharge.” disabled See Jackson v. This assertion somewhat (7th 414 812 Cir. must Chicago, overstates Johns’ burden. She ad- 2005). Reassignment to a position permit vacant duce evidence that would reason- employee infer the of a qualified which disabled is able factfinder to existence case, permanent, is a form reasonable accommodation. vacant this
571
restric-
previously
v.
it
had received those
position.
Baert
Euclid
See
Ltd.,
Ingram. Specifically, Johns
tions from Dr.
Beverage,
Cir.
1998)
early
Ingram
that Dr.
summary judg-
told Laidlaw
(reversing grant
driving
from
to restrict her
gen-
where there was a
continued
employer
ment for
bus;
of this
again
informed Laidlaw
positions
uine
vacant
were
issue whether
May
available);
gave her the
restriction when Laidlaw
Hendricks-Robinson
Excel
(7th Cir.1998).
directing her to resume bus driv-
4 letter
Corp., 154 F.3d
conversation,
May
Laid-
After the
ing.
done
The
She has
so.
letter
request
further
information
permit a
law did not
evidence that
reasonable
would
Johns,
necessarily
is not
from
so Johns
perma-
factfinder
find
there was
inter-
nent,
of the
responsible
breakdown
vacant bus
available
*4
Sears,
Co.,
Roebuck &
process.
for
time it
to accom-
active
See
the
refused
(concluding
417 F.3d
that
rea-
modate her with one. The letter describes
at 805-07
employer
that the
positions
currently
jury
bus
both
sonable
could find
as
pro-
the interactive
having
pay
and
caused breakdown of
available
as
an established
where,
length
though
employee quit
even
the
schedule based on
of service with
cess
departure,
employee’s
the
of
to
company.
prior
Laidlaw’s own statement
the
requests
in
for
undisputed facts
the district court even made several
accommoda-
Baert,
tion);
(concluding
an
for moni-
curs,” Jackson,
and
process
last act in the interactive
“[t]he
I
appeal
would dismiss this
for noncom-
breakdown,”
always
the cause of a
Rule
pliance with
28 of the Federal Rules
Sears,
Co.,
Roebuck &
supporting legal authority or record evi- appel-
dence. Rule 28 requires an (among things)
lant’s brief contain other argument
an general- that is more than a error,
ized assertion of citation
supporting legal authority and the record appellant
evidence which the relies. 28(a)(9); R.App.
Fed. P. Anderson v.
Hardman, Cir.
2001). promotes The rule the evenhanded justice “applies
administration of Where,
equally pro se litigants.” Id.
here, a se pro litigant comply fails to rule, “we cannot fill the void craft-
ing arguments performing neces-
sary legal Although research.” Id. se pro
filings liberally are construed favor of *5 review, appellate
providing “pro liti- se
gants expect should that noncompliance Rule 28 will result dismissal
appeal.” argues Id. Laidlaw as a thresh-
old appellate matter that Johns’s brief is
inadequate warranting under Rule dis- agree, I
missal. and would dismiss the
appeal for noncompliance with Rule 28.
Larry MOGG, Plaintiff-Appellant, R. BARNHART, Anne B.
Jo
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 05-3755. of Appeals,
United States Court
Seventh Circuit.
Argued Aug. 2006.
Decided Oct. 2006. IN, Mulvany, Indianapolis,
Patrick H. Plaintiff-Appellant.