*1 Tharaldson, Humphrey v. missed. (7th Cir.1996).
F.3d Finally, appeals Davis the dis ruling upholding court’s the constitu trict tionality Housing Fair Act.
defendants, however, argue that this claim complaint alleging moot because the is the Act Davis violated has dismissed prejudice. agree with the defen We dants that a case becomes moot if the grant
court is unable to relief affecting the legal rights parties. See Air Line Ass’n, Corporation, Pilots Int. v. UAL (1994). F.2d Because no Fair Housing Act are complaints pending Davis,
against his claim moot. above, For the stated reasons we AffiRM court. district Raymond WRIGHT, D. Plaintiff-
Appellant, DEPARTMENT ILLINOIS CORRECTIONS, OF Defendant-Appellee.
No. 98-3585. Appeals, United States Court of Seventh Circuit. Argued April Decided Feb. *2 (ar- Goldstein, at the offi- Stanley might Eli Karsh correctional E. Associates, Liberman, Academy. training Goldstein & cer Because Mr. gued), MO, Clayton, Plaintiff-Appellant. through Wright successfully proceeded for screening process Department’s and the (argued), E. Office Janon Fabiano application, evaluation of his he General, Chicago, IL, Defen- Attorney placed list of dani>-Appellee. eligible employment. persons BAUER, RIPPLE Before and 1995, 29, March the Robinson Cor- On ROVNER, Judges. Circuit (“Robinson”) gave Mr. rectional Center RIPPLE, Judge. Circuit employment an that Wright offer of completion conditional on his successful brought action Raymond Wright April a medical exam. drug a test and On of Correc- against Illinois 21, reported he to Robinson for an orienta- (“the alleged Department”). tions He Wright session. Mr. informed the Department violated the Americans a orientation leaders (“ADA”), Act with Disabilities U.S.C. sitting, prevented standing, him that him from et hire seq., refusing walking any length disability. The district of time. When because his granted summary for the judgment inquired court new recruits one of other (where Wright appeals. Mr. Department, and life” in “night Springfield opinion, For the set forth in this reasons located), training Academy is the or- district we affirm the evening stated that ientation leaders court. occupied with hours would be various exercises, including marching. right threw arm in Mr. then his said, “cha-ching, air and I’m outta BACKGROUND R.27, Ex. 5. the orienta- there.” A. Facts meant, what he he reit- tion leaders asked August Raymond Wright ap- standing, sitting,and In erated he had position plied for as a correctional officer walking disability. He also stated of Correc- with Illinois screening interviewers had told application, tions. On his he checked prolonged running he would not have to do indicating that he was box veteran Academy. at the The orientation leaders disability.1 August service-connected On then said would need a note from through the Mr. went exempt doctor to be from run- prolonged screening process required- appli- all orientation, At ning. the conclusion of the examinations, cants, including two written the other Mr. and candidates were test, five-step physical agility report April instructed to Robinson Wright passed interview. Mr. the written physical 25 for the exam. R. flying tests “with colors.” Wright alleges when he re- 27 at7. Mr. told interviewers April 21, turned home after orientation on problem might that he had Lynnette call phone he received a running. The prolonged not be able to do Personnel Of- Jones interviewers passing told stating that fice physical agility test meant he was more “overlooked” his and that he as- qualified than to handle all R.27 a would be hired because of it. pects of the and that he obtain any prolonged running Wright alleges “waiver” from 4. Mr. that he then called honorably Wright dis- due to an sustained while Navy charged Corps playing volleyball weapons at a United States Marine station. Representative Illinois State Chuck Hart- he was being removed from the office, list, which in turn made ke’s a call to the and Mr. received a letter to call Department. This second resulted May. same effect at the end of Department’s scheduling special for a medical April exam. On Holding B. of the District Court *3 Representative Carolyn Personnel Ochs The district court granted summary wrote a memorandum to Administrative judgment Department. for the The court Assistant regarding Charles Williams first held that Mr. Wright had not estab- “Pending Raymond COT Wright.” Hire— lished that he was disabled within the R.27, Ex.5. The memo informed Williams meaning of the ADA because he neither that, 21, Mr. April inquired had produced evidence that his paperwork whether was needed for his an that substantially limit- disability, application medical that his indi- ed a life activity nor adequately cated he was a veteran with a service- demonstrated that he was disability, connected and that he stated having such impairment. The court stand, sit, he could not or walk for rejected also Mr. contention that length of time. against discriminated him April Lynnette On Jones wrote because of by his scheduling him Quigg letter to Dr. confirming pre-em- special for a appointment with Dr. Quigg ployment physical exam scheduled for Mr. rather than giving him the same routine 3, 1995, Wright May for at 10:30 a.m. The physical exam that the other candidates letter applied stated Mr. view, received. In the court’s the record to become a correctional officer and plainly showed that special appoint- due to an injury, he had restrictions ment was response scheduled in to Mr. on standing, sitting, and walking Wright’s complaints and in an effort to him prevent marching. would Jones determine how his ankle condition would included with the letter a description of affect his ability in training training regimen six-week for correc- and to perform the duties of a correctional tional officers and asked Dr. Quigg to de- officer.
termine whether Mr. Wright would be ca- held, Finally, the court even if Mr. pable performing duties of Wright had established a prima facie case a correctional officer. The Department discrimination, was still Wright by phone contacted Mr. summary judgment. entitled to The De- mail notify May appoint- partment had a legitimate articulated non- Quigg. ment with Dr. discriminatory reason removing Mr. 3,May On Mr. arrived late for list, Wright from the eligibility and Mr. appointment Quigg’s Dr. office be- Wright presented no evidence that the cause spent day attending he had proffered pretextual. reason was preparations upcoming wedding. parties dispute
The
whether he was an
II
hour or two and a half
hours late.
event,
DISCUSSION
Quigg
Dr.
refused to see him and
told him
to contact the
A.
reschedule.
day,
The next
contacted the
and was told
We review de novo the district
Rick Dunbar that another exam would be
court’s
grant summary judg
decision to
scheduled but that he would
May
miss the
ment to the defendant. See Talanda v.
starting
Co.,
date and would have to wait
Management
KFC Nat’l
140 F.3d
—
(7th
entering
Cir.),
denied,
the next
class.
Dunbar
cert.
U.S.
-,
later called Mr.
to inform
119 S.Ct.
29 C.F.R. because of a regulations provided perception based Guidance “myth, type,” fear or stereo states: individu- al will satisfy “regarded part as” part [statutory] defini- The third disability. definition of If the em- “disability”] provides [of an ployer cannot articulate a non-discrimi- ... regarded having who is individual natory employment reason for the ac- substantially limits a tion, an employer inference that the activity individual with is an acting “myth, on the basis of fear or disability.
stereotype” can be drawn. C.F.R.App. to Pt. at 350. suppose
... example, employ- For pressure has controlled blood high ee To demonstrate that the Depart substantially limiting. is not If an him as disabled within the employer reassigns the individual to less ADA, meaning Wright points work of unsubstanti- strenuous because Department’s response interrog to an fears that will ated the individual suffer atory that asked “whether Defendant con a heart attack he or she continues to sidered Plaintiff to disabled.” R. work, employer perform strenuous *5 Ex. 6 at Department 15. The answered the individual regarding would be “yes” interrogatory.2 to disabled. submits that the interroga
tory conclusively answer establishes that Department the regarded as disabled “regarded The rationale for the as” ADA, within the of the at meaning or that part of the definition was genuine least it creates a issue triable in by Supreme articulated Court the fact on accept that issue. We cannot this Act of 1973 context Rehabilitation replete submission. The record is in School Board Nassau County Department evidence that the did not re Arline, 480 U.S. 107 S.Ct. gard or treat Mr. (1987). condition The L.Ed.2d 307 Court noted as a that term is defined that, may although an individual have an is, impairment the ADA—that an that sub not in fact does sub stantially major life activity. limits a stantially activity, limit a life may prove just of others reaction that, It is at the end of the undisputed disabling. impairment might “Such an test, usual agility Department person’s physical diminish a or men Wright qualified per- considered Mr. to capabilities, but could tal nevertheless form physical aspects of a correctional substantially person’s ability limit that officer’s duties. The rec- negative work as a result reac despite ords indicate that Mr. impairment.” tions of others to the condition, in successfully performed 283, 107 at U.S. S.Ct. test, rigorous physical agility five-step test, step hang
which grip included Therefore, test, test, an strength carry can lift and an individual show test, agility push-up test.3 Mr. employer entity or other covered and a Discharged Physical interrogatory Honorably was due to a 2. The further asked: "If the R.27, why yes, Disability Pay.” when and answer is then state De- with Severance Ex.6 began to consider Plaintiff be dis- at 15. fendant The answered: abled.” “Plain- applicants step Employment Application step required CMS 3. The test tiff's up steps per at discharged steps after an and a rate of 96 shows down carry job Technologies minute for The lift and test from United Automo- 3 minutes. required applicants to lift a box from the tive. The Plaintiff’s Certificate Release or Duty carry Discharge floor and 200 feet without rest from Active documents he argu require- Quigg, accept minimum Dr. we cannot achieved ap ment. The scheduled spare. of each test with room ments him pointment only after passing him that His interviewers assured ability questioned self he was physical agility tests meant aspects training program. certain handling than the duties context, in this the De evaluated officer, as- of a correctional interrogatory response partment’s patrolling include the facili- pects of which it considered him “dis question whether inmate perimeter, monitoring ty and its clearly insufficient to create a abled” while armed with activity from a tower pro The regulations issue fact. triable inmate, firearm, cell, and area conducting “regarded as” disabled vide searches, using physical force when ADA, under the the individual must have necessary. treated as disabled the covered when Mr. question A arose 1630.2(i)(1) entity. See 29 C.F.R. ability perform doubt raised (3). nothing There is the record of a specific physical tasks which a reasonable trier of fact question. specific trainee time, that, conclude then, Department’s focus Even impair having perform he could the duties whether substantially ment limited Illi- of a officer in the quired correctional activity caring such as for himself or walk system. first, At penal nois does ing. record not demonstrate took Mr. his word “myth, acted out of light of his declara- informed stereotype” arranged fear or when it up to the physical by the the examination doctor. C.F.R. training, he would not be demands contrary, to Pt. at 350. To the *6 then decided to Department hired. De the record as a whole shows that the referring the case closer look. give a attempt partment’s request merely Wright physician Mr. to a extent of to ascertain the Mr. of light protesta- evaluation impairment claimed the —an performing dur- tions about tasks Department had not even considered be ing training, Department the the directed problem Wright Mr. raised the the description physician review injuries might possibility that his earlier then, training program and evaluat- after him meeting de impede specific Wright ing Mr. to “indicate Mr. particular mands for which he all capable of of the duties performing applying. would a correctional has dem- Wright Because Mr. failed to 27,R. Ex. officer.” Department regarded onstrate that Although Wright argues substantially impaired him being Department major activity,4 treated as disabled life has he not shown that scheduling appointment he is defined in ADA him for disabled as longer stops agility test than 15 seconds. The sential element of claim under required feet, applicants to scramble to their Act. Mr. made clear to those run- cones, perform maneuver around ning program because of the condi- squat timed conditions. thrusts under ankle, of his particular activities established respectfully dissenting 4. We note that our col- particular position. for this He therefore was only league afterthought as an addresses eligible removed from the list of for this those question can essential of whether the record action, job. directly particular This either or Department support the conclusion inference, support reasonable will not substantially being allegation considered view, impaired activity. in a life In our being impaired substantially however, this is central the case and issue activity. support the evidence will not this es- prerequisite Department’s training academy. establish this cannot See ante ¶ 728; 6); App. under Aff. at claiming disabihty (Wright discrimination see App. (Dep. ADA. therefore must affirm the also of Karla We Klindworth at 11); grant summary judg- App. Janette (Dep. court’s Routien at district 22); 26); Department. App. ment to the Rick (Dep. of Dunbar at Harry 114 (Dep. of Marshall at Conclusion juncture, then, As of that reasons, For foregoing no evinced concern that the district court is affirmed. any significant limitations that rendered him unqualified serve as a Affirmed To contrary, corrections officer. ROVNER, ILANA Circuit DIAMOND placed the eligibility list for Judge, dissenting. hiring. further, If went the record no there would no indeed be basis to infer My colleagues today surpris- conclude that the Department perceived him as dis- ingly permit that the record would abled. infer that the De- reasonable factfinder to perceived Wright partment Corrections subsequently When Wright reported to Certainly a jury, to be disabled. after the Robinson Correctional Center for or evidence, might hearing the conclude as ientation, however, rather clear hints of a my colleagues have different began emerge. attitude capable of perfectly
viewed explain asked to the “I’m outta there” However, working prison as a guard. remark purportedly made when the hold as a matter of law this is the subject of marching up, Wright came indi ignores quite permissible strong conclusion cated that prevented his ankle of which being the least evidence—not (and walking, sitting, standing via interroga- own admission thus from running marching) pro tory harbored sub- —that time, longed periods although, according Wright’s ability reservations stantial report to the own of this evidence, work. In the of that face session, Wright seems have also indicat no choice but to have dissent. ed that he “fine” as long would be as he my colleagues emphasize, As things *7 App. had access to a 144 gymnasium. Wright in swimmingly went the initial 20, (April 1995 Mem. from Janette IDOC stages process. employment He Clough Routien & to Chuck Connie passed all of the that were adminis- tests Williams); App. (Complaint 6 at 2 see also session, screening including tered at the ¶ ¶ (Answer 12); 12); at 2 App. App. 10 16 fairly five-step agility strenuous test ¶ (Wright Wright Aff. at 3 did not majority opinion. in the described Ante at express could doubt that he otherwise han 3; Appellant & n. see of Appendix 731 job, time Depart dle the and at no has the ¶ 5); (“App.”) Aff. at 2 (Wright App. 15 inability ment indicated that an march (Correctional Super- 138-39 Officer/Youth periods or run would prolonged leave Test). Physical Agility Trainee visor Wright as a corrections unable to work When, interview, during the Wright oral ¶ 12); 2 (Complaint officer. See 6 at App. possibility might that he not be raised ¶ (Answer 12); 2 App. App. 10 at 16 periods to run for lengthy able of time ¶¶ 6-7, 11). (Wright Aff. at 3 of he injury, because his ankle was assured Yet, Wright based on the test results he would returned home from the handling message find a difficulty physical have no orientation session to (see 731-32) telephone answering machine from demands of the ante at Jones, Lynette releasing employ- and that he could a waiver obtain any running screening from ment coordinator. When prolonged him at the 734 call, orientation, he simply informed he what would
Wright returned the Jones asked physician him that the had “overlooked” have to obtain from order exempted running. “disability” prolonged and that he would not be be (Even ¶ 11). App. (Wright hired Aff. at 3 at Robinson as result of dis- 16 728-29; App. report Ante ability. prepared at see 16-17 individuals who ¶ 12). Wright Aff. at (Wright 2-3 As re- conducted orientation session indicates conversation, Wright expressed he reminded reservations counts passed physical respect marching, that he had with with Jones that he agility aspect test assured her other or work as a cor- officer.) fully meeting (April App. the demands of rectional ¶ 12.) job. App. (Wright Aff. at 2 1995 IDOC Mem. Janette Routien & Williams). permitted Clough He also asked that he be to Connie to Chuck report physical for a examination with the in- Wright also avers when Jones days other new Robinson hires several la- him that the formed ¶ 12). (Wright 2-3 him App. moving ter. 16-17 Aff. at from the list view refused, reiterating which then it Jones “overlooked,” ment longer considering repeated was no to her what the employment. App. (Wright personnel previous- 16-17 Aff. at Department’s own ¶ 12). ly ability 2-3 him: that his assured success- fully complete agility test indicated Wright Jones’ remarks to constitute di up physical that he was fully rigors rect the Department per evidence ¶ 12). job. Aff. at (Wright ceived to be At that disabled. Moreover, when demanded obviously point, Department quite permitted proceed physical working incapable deemed being examination to the oth- administered unqualified correctional officer—thus its during er new hires—an examination refusal to for a posi consider presumably which his limitations tion at Robinson or other correctional have explored refused. —Jones See, facility. e.g., Cline v. Wal-Mart ¶ 12). (Wright Id. 16-17 Aff. 3-4 All at Inc., Stores, Cir. bespeaks sudden reservations 1998); Ctr., Deane v. Pocono Medical Department, part (3d Cir.1998). My F.3d col disabling. that his ankle leagues attempt explain away this turn makes perfectly record clear suggesting Depart events accommodation; most requesting was at “took his word and reading and a record favorable to light informed him of his declara makes equally clear that the De- up tion that he was not partment refused. training, demands of would not be hired.” Ante at 732. must confess to *8 Department true It is that eventual- being by this perplexed suggestion. ly relented and scheduled ex- reading purpose assessing am certain of the amination support record would inference that of work whether Wright had ever declared himself unable correctional officer. See ante at 732. my colleagues appear surmount demands train- What for- have had; but, examination, ing, my suggest colleagues gotten addressing interpreta- however, more to the point, Department the favorable is that sched- only Wright’s record to which is enti- the exam after uled State wholly tled summary judgment Representative is incon- on his intervened behalf. (“This at call Wright’s sistent with that notion. own See ante 729 second [from subject Representative] affidavit that when the resulted in the Wright’s indicates running marching Department’s scheduling Wright was raised at the exam.”); App. (Wright medical special Department perceived Wright to ¶ 13). (see at 4 A fair inference to be Aff. be disabled generally Keller v. United favor, then, Wright’s drawn in is that the States, 1198-99 n. 8 Department give “decided to the case a Cir.1995)), it nonetheless constitutes ad- (ante 732) only look” at after closer missible that perception. evidence of See My colleagues, trouble. Wright made 4 Christopher B. Mueller and Laird C. however, posit “[t]he Kirkpatrick, Federal Evidence appointment only scheduled the after Mr. (2d ed.1994). Having secured the De- questioned ability had himself partment’s evidentiary admission that it in certain aspects disabled, considered him to be I am certain training program.” Ante at 732. With that it quite surprise Wright comes as I submit that this notion respect, is mis- “[tjhere to learn today that is noth- First, respects. accepting taken two ing in the suggesting record” that the De- true, Wright’s recitation of events as partment perceived so him. Ante at 732. appointment scheduled the af- Even there were no other evidence that only questioned Wright’s ability ter it not harbored percep- such a job, to train for the him from but removed tion, interrogatory answer itself stands altogether. App. list See as such evidence. ¶ 12). Second, (Wright 16-17 Aff. at 3-4 Finally, may one readily infer from the questioned ability never his own record that Department perceived job; merely ques- do or train for the Wright to have a substantially limiting im- ability pro- tioned to run or march for pairment, opposed to a more mundane longed periods during training. App. course, one. Wright, ¶¶ believes that his 6, 11); (Wright Aff. problem poses nothing more than (April 1995 IDOC Mem. from Jan- minor limitations on of his life activi- ette Clough Routien & Connie to Chuck ties; Williams). initially, appeared it And at no time has the De- Department’s perception jibed with his partment suggested inability Again, own. engage reservation prolonged running marching disqualified Wright expressed from work as a correc- ever had to do with the fact, given tional officer. marching running components contrary. App. assurances 15 Department’s training regimen; and dur- ¶¶ 6-7). (Wright Aff. at 2 ing screening process, Department personnel him that he assured could obtain Should be needed to confirm that releasing a waiver him from such activities. there a live dispute Yet, after the orientation session at Robin- perception Wright, ment’s there is—last son, informed Wright that but not least —the own un- he would not be hired because of the “dis- qualifiedly affirmative answer to the inter- then, ability” Department, rogatory inquiring the Depart- whether had “overlooked.” sug- This about-face ment considered to be disabled. App. (Answers gests that the Department had come to to Plaintiffs First Set view Wright’s limitation as much more far- Interrogatories Directed to Defendant at reaching than it did at much first —so so Notably, 15 No. it “yes” removed name from the answer anything based on eligibility list altogether, refused his re- purportedly during hiring said *9 quest that process, by but he be examined rather the disclosure on his application physician along form that ment’s with the other Wright had left both (after trainees, Corps eventually Marine and a and subsequent his State intervened) id., injuries. due to Representative No. 12a. ordered him Although certainly answer does not examined a doctor that no other trainee binding, judicial amount to a bespeaks perception, admission saw. All of this modest, limitation, as of a controllable STATES, it, AND of a CENTRAL SOUTHEAST viewed but condi himself significant AREAS PENSION imposed
tion that limitations SOUTHWEST McDougall, working, activities as walk Howard Plain such FUND tiffs-Appellants, again, so And once confir ing, and on. supplied
mation is v. Citing interrogatory response. LINES, INC., an TRUCK Iowa HUNT Corps discharge the Marine and from from corporation, Defendant-Appellee. injured subsequent job because of ankle, the conceded that States, Central Southeast South considered be disabled. Fund west Areas Pension and Howard (Answers to Plaintiffs First Set McDougall, Plaintiffs-Appellants, Interrogatories to Defendant at Directed 15 No. That the believed of work as corrections incapable Lines, Inc., Truck an Iowa Hunt discharged he had officer because corporation, Defendant- different) jobs (distinctly from two other Appellee. signal perceived a clear that it sends 99-1273, Nos. 99-2385. stemming inju
restrictions substantial, rendering to be un ries of Appeals, States Court United perform employ able to broad class Seventh Circuit. Dep’t ment. See Riemer v. Illinois Argued Oct. (7th Cir.1998). Transp., 148 F.3d Feb. Decided Accepting Wright’s version of events as true, initial confidence
that he was work as correc- Wright began officer when tional vanished waiver inquire securing marching prolonged running during (as Department personnel had could). suggested he list, him from the hiring moved informing him that it “overlooked” the em- disclosed Later, ployment course application. discovery, would even oath, admit, writing and under that it considered to be disabled. What support Wright for the needs infer- Department perceived him to ence beyond disabled is me. respectfully dissent.