## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 09

- 2040 C HARLE SH . B UDDE, P laint if f-A ppell ant, v. K ANE C O UN TY F ORES T P R ES ERVE , D efend a nt-A pp ellee.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 1:06- cv-01165

—Re becca R. Pallm eye r,Ju dge .
A RGUED J AN UA RY 13, 2010

— D ECI DE D M AR CH 4, 2010

Befo re B AUER, M ANI ON an d T INDER, C ircu it Judges . B AUER, Cir cu i tJudg e . Ch ar l es Bu dd e, the pol ice chief f orthe K ane County For estPre ser ve Dist ri ct ( the “ Distr i ct”) , sued hi s for m erem plo yer, cl aim ing that i t di sc rim i nated ag ai nst hi m o n the basi s o fhi s di sabi l i ty, al cohol i sm . The di str i ct c ourtente re d sum m ary j ud gme n tf o r th e D i s t r i c t
. We a ffi r m.2 N o. 09

- 2040 I . B AC KGR OUND Cha r l es Budde de ci ded to dr i ve ho m e afte r dr i nk i ng four or fiv e glasses of w ine at th e M oose L od ge. H e rearended anothercar, send i ng both the d ri verand passe nger to the ho spi tal
. Bud de w as f ound to ha ve a bl oo d al cohol l eve lo f
. 23, near l y three ti m es the l ega ll i m i t in I l l i noi s. M o ni ca M ey er s, the Di st r i ct ’ s ex ec ut i ve di r ec to r a nd Bu dd e’ s i m m edi ate superv i sor, i ni ti al l y place d Bu dd e o n pai d adm i ni str ati ve l eave and subse quentl y ter m i nated him
. A t the t im e of his term ination, Bu d d e’s driver’s l i ce ns e had b een r ev o k ed as a r es ul t o fthe a cc i den t, b ut he ha d no t y etb ee n c o nv ict ed o fdr i vingunde r the i nfl uence. The te rm i nati on l ett erst ate d, i n part : The deci si on t o t erm i nate yourem plo ym ent was b a s e d o n a nu mbe r o ff a c t o r s a l lo fwh i c h i nd e pe nd

en tly w ou ld j us tify your term inati on. Th ose factors i ncl ud e a patte rn o f e rro rs i n j ud gm ent o n yo ur par t, youri nabi l i ty to perf or m yo ur duti es as Dir ecto r of Pub l i c S afety due t o the s us pen si o n o fy o urdr i ving pri vi l ege s, an d engagi ng i n conduct thati s be l ow th e st an dar d e xpe ct ed f o r thi s po si ti o n. F o l l o wi ng hi s te r m i na ti o n, Budde fi l ed su i t, c o nt en di ng that the Di str i ct vio l ate d the Am er i cans with Dis abi l i ti es A ct ( “A DA ”) bydi scr i m i nati ng ag ai nst hi m bec ause of h i s d i s ab i l i t y w h e n th e y fi r e d hi m; b y f a i l i n gt o a c c o mm od at e h is a lco h olis m ; an d by ret alia tin g a ga in st h im f orr equ es ting a r eas onabl e a ccom m odati on. The Di str i ct m ove d fo r sum m ar y j ud gm ent o n al lo fBud de’s cl ai m s. I n gr anti ng the m oti on, the dist ri ct c ourtco ncl ud ed tha tBu dde wa s b a r r e d fr o m r e c o v e r i ngu nd erthe ADAN o. 09

- 2040 3 because he was t er m i nated f orhi s m i sco nd uct, not because h e h ad a disabi l i ty. The di str i ct c ourtf ound that th e dr unkdr i ving a cci den t was the f o unda ti o n fo r the th re e re as on s M ey er s ga ve for B u d d e’s te rm in at ion
. Budde v. Ka ne C o un ty F o rest P res. , 6 0 3 F
. S up p. 2 d 1 1 3 6 , 11 42- 43 ( N
. D. I l l
. 2 00 9)
. Ev ena ss um i ngtha t he was di sabl ed, the d ist ric t c ou rtfou n d B u d d e w as n ota “q u alifie d ind ivi du alwith a d i sabi l i ty” enti tl ed to pro tect i on under th e A D A becau se he v iol ated clearl y estab li sh ed w ork rul es. Id
. at 1143
. Speci fi cal l y, the dis tr i ct c ourtco ncl ud ed th at B ud d e viol ated the Stan d ard Op erating P roced ure ( “S OP” ) tha t st ated “a l le m pl o y ee s an d m embe r s o fthe D ep artm en t .
. . m a y b e m ad e sub j ect of discip lina ry acti on” f or vio l ating “a ny F edera l, S tat e, County, o r M unici pal law .” Id. at11 42. The di str i ct c ourtnot ed that th e AD A “ne i th erprev ent s empl o y er s fr o m ho l di ng p er so n s s u f f e r i n g fro m alc oh olis m . . . [to ] rea so n ab le rul es ofco nd uct, nor p ro tect s a l cohol i cs fro m the conse quences o fthei r own m i sco nd uct. ” Id. (citation om itted ).

I I . DI S C US S I ON W e r evi ew the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s g ra nt o fsum m ar y j ud gm en t d e n o v o , c ons tru ing allf acts and reason able inferen c es in B u d d e’s fav or . Wins ley v. C ookCo unty, 56 3 F
. 3d 59 8, 60 2 (7 th C ir. 20 09 ). Su m m ar y jud gm en t is p ro p er if th e pl ea di ng s, di sc o ve r y mate r i al s, di sc l o su r es , a nd affi davi ts dem onst ra te no g enui ne i ssue ofm ate ri alf act such thatthe Dist ri ct i s e nti tl ed to j ud gm en t as a m att er of l aw . Fed R. Civ. P. 56(c).4 N o. 09

- 2040 I n o r de r t o p r e v a i lo n hi s d i s c r i mi na t i o n c l a i m, Bu dde m ust fi rs t e stabl i sh thathe i s a “qual i fi ed i nd i vi du alwith a di sabi l i ty. ” B asith v. C ookCo unty, 24 1 F
. 3d 919, 92 7 ( 7th C ir. 20 01 ). A “q u alifie d ind ivid u a l w ith a d isa b ility ” is som eone wh o ( 1) sa ti sfi es the r equi si te ski l l, exp er i ence, ed u c at ion, an d oth er j ob -re lat ed req u ire m en ts of h is em plo ym ent pos i ti on, and ( 2) can perf or m the ess enti al func ti o ns o fthe po si ti o n h el d or d es i r ed, wi tho r wi th o ut reason able acco m m od ation. 29 C.F. R
. § 1630.2(m ). Bu d d e’s cla i m f ai l s be ca us e, a s a r es ul t o fhi s m i sc o nduc t, he ca nnot p er f o r m e ss en ti alj o b func ti o ns i n tha t he ( 1) f ai l ed to c o m pl y wi thuni ve r sa lwor k pl ac e r ul es a nd ( 2) co uld notper f or m an e sse nti alj ob fu n c tion i n that h e w as u n ab le t o op er at e a m ot or ve h icle d u e t o h is suspended dri ver ’ s l i cense. Vio l atio n o f a w or kpl ace rul e, ev en i fi t i s ca used by a di sa bi l i t y, i s n o d e fe n s e t o d i s c i p l i n e u p t o a n d i n c l u d i ng te rm in at ion
. P ernice v . City of C hic ag o , 237 F. 3d 783, 78 5 ( 7th Ci r. 20 01)
. W here the m i sco nd uct at is su e invol ves a pl ai nti ff’ s o ff

- du ty cri m i nalbehav i or, an e m plo yer i s no t re q u i re d to w ai t forthe outco m e o fa cri m i nal ad j u d ica tio n an d /or h av e p ro of b ey on d a re a s o n ab le doubt befor e i t ca n i m pose disc i pline. Id. at 784. Bas ed o n the r ec o r d, w e find tha t th er e wer e su ffi ci en t f acts f orM eye rs to bel i eve thatBud de’s m i sco nd uct const i tuted a vio latio n ofthe Dist ri ct’ s S OPs, wh i ch w ar ra nted hi s t er m i nation. H e v i ol ate d both the S OP that prohibi ted o ffi cer s fro m being publ i cl y intoxi cate d, as w el las the SOP thatpro hibi ted em plo yee s fro m vio lat in g p u b lic la w s. A s p olic e c h ief, th e D ist ric t c ou ldN o. 09

- 2040 5

re as on ab ly ex p ec t B u d d e t o re fra infrom en ga gin g in unlawful a cti vi ti es. W e a gr ee w i th the di str i ct c ourtthat i n choo si ng to dri ve w h il e intoxi cate d and causi ng a cra sh thatse nt two peopl e t o t h e h ospita l, he f ai l ed to co m pl y wi thth e wor k pl ac e r ul es , a nd Budde was no longer qu ali fi ed to perform his j ob as p oli ce ch ief
. I n a ddi ti o n, b o ththe Di st r i cta nd Budde a g r ee tha t o ne ofBud de’s es senti alj ob fu ncti ons w as the abi l i ty to o per at e a ve hi cl e: Budde was the po l i ce chi efwho author ed GeneralOrder 92- 09, st ating tha t the ab i l i ty to o per at e a ve hi cl e i s ane ss en ti alj o b func ti o n, a nd the D ist ric t p ro v i d e d B u d d e w ith a p olic e c ar to u se atall ti m es. A pp el l ant’ s Br. at13

- 14. The Di str i ct ar gues that B u d d e w as n ot“q u alifie d ” b ec au se , as a res u lt of h is m i sc o nduc t, hi s dr i ve r ’ s l i ce ns e wa s su spe nde d a nd he co uld noto perat e a ve hi cl e. In contr ast, Bud de ar gues that “the abi l i ty to oper ate a vehi cl e” i s di ffer en t fro m “hav[ i ng] a val i d dri ver ’ s l i cense. ” Ap pel l ant’ s Br. at13
. W e do not fi nd Bud de’s at tem pt to draw a di stincti on persuas i ve. The o nl y l ogi calreas on t o re quir e the pol i ce chi efto have the abi l i ty to oper ate a vehi c le is so that h e c an , in fac t, d riv e t h e v e h icle . A n d u n d er Il lin ois l aw, “ no pe r so n s ha l ldr i ve a mot o r v eh i cl e unless he hold s a vali d l icens e, p erm it, or r estricted driving p erm i t. ” I l l i noi s Dri verLi censi ng Law , 62 5 I l l
. C om p . S tat
. 5/ 6- 10 1. Budde’s inab i l i tyt o o per at e a ve hi cl e i s no t th e r es ul t o fhi s di sabi li ty; i t i s a co ns eque nc e o fc ho o sing to d riv e his carafterco nsum i ng f our orfi ve gl ass es ofwine. The Di st r i ctterm inat ed Budde be ca us e o fhi s m i sc o nd u c t, n otd u e t o d isc rim in at ion . B u d d e w as n ot“q u a li-6 N o. 09

- 2040 fied ” t o p er for m h is job as p olic e c h ief, ba se d on h is f ai l ure to com plywith work pla ce rule s a nd hi s inabi l i ty t o o p e r a t e a v e h i c l e . B u d d e ’ s c l a i ms f o r f a i l u r e t o a c c o mm oda te and r eta l i ati on f orse eking an acco m m odati on ar e a l so w i thout m er i t.

I I I . C ONC L US I ON Bu dd e f ai l ed to co nfo rm to workpl ace ru les and, as a conse quence, was no l onge r quali fi ed to per f or m an essen tial fun ction o f h is j ob as p oli ce ch ief
. W e the refore A FFIRM the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s g ra nti ng ofsum m ar y j ud gm ent.

3- 4- 10