*1 NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To cited only accordance Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals

For Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois Argued December

Decided February RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge No. ‐ Appeal United States District ANTHIMOS GOGOS, Court Northern District Illinois, Plaintiff Appellant Eastern Division.

v . CV MECHANICAL SYSTEM, INC. Manish S. Shah,

Defendant Appellee .

Judge . O R D E R

Anthimos alleges former Mechanical System, Inc., violated rights under Americans Disabilities Act, U.S.C. § 12112(a), firing early hypertension. district court granted judgment AMS, reasoning supervisor disability. We affirm different ground. Even if supervisor fact finder insubordination, disability.

I. Background

Gogos, Greek and French citizen who speaks broken English, worked welder and pipefitter on subcontracted projects to build new plant at BP refinery Whiting, Indiana. After satisfactorily completing pipefitting work at the refinery, rehired eight months later to perform more pipefitting. Gogos reported to two forepersons whose supervisors were Don general foreman, Tom Dubsky, superintendent at refinery. required its pipefitters to notify their foreperson if they needed to leave work early. During first month his second tour AMS, early doctor’s visits on three occasions. Each time informed foreperson, turn notified third early departure, Henson complained to Dubsky “was leaving to go to doctor, numerous times.” No suggests, however, Henson reasons these doctor visits. Dubsky reminded Henson policy required doctor’s when visited on company time.

Near end month, became ill hypertension. His coworkers noticed right eye very red. When experienced loss vision high blood pressure at work two days later, asked foreperson permission obtain immediate attention. He wrote note: “[A]s you know, my blood pressure high. My right eye is red. I lose vision off, I need ‐ ‐ I like take my day off go see doctor.” foreperson told leaving go doctor. responded, “Really[,] … I’ll take care it.” spoke about early. told him, “I’m working today. I’m going hospital. Can you please call bus? Call bus. Hopefully I make safe.” (A company bus shuttled workers between job site parking lot.) continued, “[A]s you know, my eye’s red, lose vision, blood pressure’s too high, I go see doctor.” denies vision deteriorated high pressure, review, we accept account. bring doctor’s returned work. At this, agitated belligerent. responded explaining “[l]ately, you’re taking too much time off your job without [a] excuse. If I will let you [to doctor], you going bring tomorrow excuse?” still agitated, *3 replied, “I’m not sure I make to hospital. So why are you asking me that question?” Gogos does not deny that Henson him provide a doctor’s documenting his visit. Nor does he deny that he rebuffed this request, asserting that he not Henson then warned him: “[I]f you come tomorrow you don’t have doctor’s a reasoning [sic] that you’re leaving, you will probably be terminated at that time.” response yelled, “You cannot fire me.” Henson clarified, “I’m not firing you. I’m you doctor’s note. It’s simple request. If you cannot provide me with doctor’s note, I’m going let you go I need reasoning [sic] that you’re missing this time.” then became profane continued defy He screamed, “I’m not fucking give [sic] you anything.” Henson responded, “Well, you might as well just grab your stuff when you go doctor’s, you’re done.” shouted, “You cannot fucking fire me.” He also Henson he recording their conversation (untrue), admonished him he could violating BP’s rule prohibiting cell phones inside plant. again heatedly refused bring note, said, “You are fired.” As turned away, grabbed by shoulder turn him around, repeating, “You cannot fucking me.” responded, “[D]o not put your hands me. That’s not tolerated. At this point you are fired.” denies physical with Henson, does support denial citations any evidence, such as own testimony, as duty; without supporting citations, bare denial is ineffective. F ED . R. C IV . P. 56(a); Smith Lamz 2003) (explaining party opposing does cite admissible denying facts asserted moving party’s statement undisputed facts, they deemed admitted). visited onsite facility, which diagnosed elevated pressure. worksite, completed discharge paperwork gave form saying being let “excessive absenteeism”

“tardiness.” also checked box form “voluntary resignation.” member same union explained checked box “didn’t want ruin chances getting another job.” Later day determined suffered from chest pain, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart disease, insufficient oxygen reaching part brain.

Shortly after receiving discharge notice, received second form AMS. This one, signed timekeeper, attributed *4 15 3603 4 reduction in workforce. receiving this form, had called an AMS employee and him change on original notice from “termination” “layoff” so that he could receive unemployment compensation. The timekeeper testified that had indeed received call an employee said that should listed as laid off. sued AMS alleging that was fired because of disability in violation of ADA. an earlier appeal, we ruled that Gogos’s impaired vision and high blood pressure qualify covered disabilities. See v. Mech. Sys., Inc. , 737 F.3d 1170, 1172–73 (7th Cir. 2013). moved for summary judgment, contending that of hypertension, that was qualified individual fired for refusing supply for grabbing Accepting first argument, district court granted summary AMS.

II. Discussion

To defeat judgment, needed evidence knew had disability fired of it. See U.S.C. § 12112(a); Hooper v. Proctor Health Care Inc. , F.3d 846, (7th Cir. 2015); Hedberg v. Ind. Bell Tel. Co. , F.3d 928, (7th Cir. 1995). contains sufficient evidence create jury question on element. testified deposition during heated exchange said needed hospital treatment of high pressure loss vision. And Dubsky testified worksite prior occasions appointments. Viewing evidence light most favorable jury could reasonably about disability. contends, however, we affirm based uncontradicted evidence fired insubordination—that is, swearing, grabbing shoulder, belligerently defying reasonable request correct. No evidence contradicts Henson’s account critical moments sequence events surrounding discharge: repeatedly profanely refused Henson’s request note, immediately him. lawful employers may require an employee’s asserted disability. Delaval v. PTech Drilling Tubulars, L.L.C. , F.3d 2016); EEOC Prevo ʹ s Family Mkt., Inc. (6th Cir. 1998). And an may worker insubordinately disobeying *5 15 3603 5 work request or for grabbing a supervisor. See Everroad v. Scott Truck Sys., Inc. , 604 F.3d 471, 478 (7th Cir. 2010); Williams v. Airborne Exp., Inc. , 521 F.3d 765, (7th Cir. 2008); Culver v. Gorman & Co. , F.3d 540, (7th Cir. 2005); Ryan v. Capital Contractors, Inc. , F.3d 772, (8th Cir. 2012). short, a reasonable fact finder would have fired grabbed profanely disobeyed lawful request for a note. See Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc. , U.S. (2000) (explaining an employer would be entitled matter of law discriminatory discharge case “if the conclusively revealed … [a] nondiscriminatory reason for the employer’s [termination] decision”).

Moreover, it would be strange subject possible liability for violating the ADA was trying comply terms of statutory scheme by asking Once an employee has reported has duty work employee determine proper accommodation. Beck Univ. Wis. Bd. of Regents 1996). A facilitated required interactive process between determine reasonable accommodation especially given poor English. But Gogos’s defiance abruptly halted process. responses unavailing. First, argues ignored its policy

allowing absences illness. But far ignoring its policy, was trying enforce documentation absence indeed illness related. Second, identifies supposedly comparable worker missed fired. But not threatening work. fired only after belligerently flouted request physical profane. Third, highlights differing explanations termination. But variation forms—attributable part own paperwork changed reflect layoff rather than termination—suggests only these forms alone do reveal true discharge. uncontradicted account confrontation identifies real reason: insubordination.

AFFIRMED.