H on. Sh ar on J ohn s on C olem an ofthe Northe rnDis t ri c tof  I l l i noi s , s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on.



## 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. 11

- 2880 T ERRIB ASDEN, P laint if f-A ppell ant, v. P R OFE S S I ONALT RA NS PO R T A T I ON, I NC ., D efend a nt-A pp ellee.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Indian a, Ev ansvill e D ivisi on. No . 10 CV 00002

—WilliamT. Lawrence , Judge .
A RGUED F EB RU AR Y 10, 2012

— D ECIDED M AY 8, 2013

Befo re R IPPLE a nd R OV NER, C ircu it Judges, a nd C OLE MAN, D i s t r i ctJudg e .  C OLE MAN, D istrict Judge. T e r r i B a s d e n fi l e d a c o mp l a i n tal l e g i n gth a ts h e w a s t e r mi n a t e d fr o m h e r e mp loy m en t w ith P ro fes sio n al T ra n sp or ta tio n, In c . (PT I) in2 N o. 11

- 2880

v i o l a t i o n o fth e Ame r i c a ns Wi th D i s a b i l i t i e s Ac t( AD A) an d the F ami l y a nd M edi ca l Le ave Act( F M LA )
. The di st r i ctc o urt f o und tha t Bas denha d f ai l ed to pr es en t ev i den ce s uffi ci en t to e st ab l i sha pr i m a f ac i e r i g htt o the prot ecti on o fei therst atute and gr anted sum m ar y j ud gme n ti n f a v o r o fP T I
. We a ffi r m. T h e p ar tie s d o n o t d isp u te th e fa c ts u n d er lyin g t h is acti on. PTI provi des ar ound-the- cl ockgr ound tra nsport atio n se rv ice for ra ilroa d s s e e k i n g t o m ov e t h eir tra in cre w s fro m on e ro u te to anothe r. Basden w as engag ed by PTI as a di spatchero n J une 29, 20 07 . E m p loy ees at PTI’ s di spatch c enterwere subj ect to an at tendance pol i cy that defi ned an i nci dent ofabs entee ism as a peri od away fro m a sc h ed ule d shi ft f ora m i ni m um o f f our hours. A n ab sence ofup to fi ve conse cuti ve shi fts f o r a s i ng l e r e a s o n c o ul d b e c o ns i de r e d o ne i nc i dent. T he a tt en dan ce po l i cypr o vi ded th ata fte r a n e m pl o y ee’ s fifth inc id en t w ith in a ye ar , a ve rb al w ar n in g c ou ld be g i ve n; afte r he r s i xth i nc i den t, a wri tt enwar ni ng coul d be g i ven; afterherse venth, a th ree- day suspensi on c ou ld b e give n ; an d aft er h er eig h th , sh e cou ld b e t er m inated. The pol i cy did notdi ffer enti ate betw een absences f orm edi calr eas ons and otherabs ences. B a s d e n h a d t wo a b s e n t e e i n c i d e n t s i n 2 0 0 7, a n d t he re cor d d oe s not r eve althe cause oftho se abse nces. I n J anuary20 08, Basd en b ecam e di zzy and fel l i n her ho m e. S he w as tr ea te d a t ane m er g en cyr o o m , a nd the att ending physi ci an r efer re d her to a n euro l ogi st after a CT scan s how ed abnor m al i ti es that suggested that she m i ght ha ve m ult i ple scl er osi s. She w as abse nt fro mN o. 11

- 2880 3

w or k fro m Jan u ar y 1 4 t h ro u gh Jan u ar y 1 7, a n d th is ab se nc e was t r ea te d a s he r thi r d i nc i den t. S he h ad a noth er ep isode of d izz in ess an d return ed to the em ergency r oo m o n Feb ruar y 1 , wh i ch r esul ted i n another abse nce and herf ourth i nci dent und erthe disp at ch cente r pol i cy. Basden w as abse nt fro m M ar ch 13 thro ugh M ar ch1 5, whi chwas c o ns i der ed he r fi fthi nc i den t and prom pt ed a verbalwarni ng. A bsence s o n A pri l 7, A pri l 8, and A pri l 11 thr ough A p ril 1 4 w er e t re ate d as a s i xth i nci dent, r esul ti ng i n a wri tte n w ar ni ng. She provi de d a n ote fro m herphysi ci an afterea ch of her abse nces, and m ad e an appoi ntm ent t o see an M S speci al i st on J une 23, 20 08, the fi rs t a vaila b l e date

. Sh e h ad bee n ass i gned “cl ose r” duti es, wh i ch r equi re d m or e typi ng than the pure dispat cher ro l e, an d w hen she b ega n to feelnum bness i n herhands, she ask ed to be r elie ve d ofcl ose r ass i gnm ents. The co m pany m ove d her backto di spatcher, b u t eve ntual l y r etur ned her to the c l ose r du ti es. Basden al so ask ed to be m ove d to a par t- ti m e pos i ti on. The pos iti on s he so ught i n her fi rs t r eq uest w as gi ven t o anothe r em plo yee , but a s e c o n d r e q u e s tw a s g r a n t e d a nd s h e mo v e d t o p a r t
- t i me w or k o n M ay 1, 20 08. Basden w as abse nt a gai n on M ay 22, 20 08 and w as suspende d forthr ee days. PTI ’ s pol i cy perm i tte d an em plo yee with a t l eas t a ye ar ’ s t enure to re quest a n unp ai d 3 0- day l eave of abse nce. On M ay 23, 200 8, Basden subm i tte d a l eave r equest f or m , ev en tho ugh s he h a d n o ty e tb e e n wi th the c o mpa nyf o r a y e a r . On th e form , she ind icated that the leave w as ne cess ary4 N o. 11

- 2880 b ec au se of “c om p lica tio n s d u e t o m ed ica l illn es s (M S).” That r eq u es t w as denie d, and w hen Basden f ai l ed to re turn t o w or k f ol l ow in g hersuspensi on, herem plo ym ent w as ter m i nated. Basden’s com pla i nt al l eged that h e r t e r mi n a t i o n v i o l a t e d b o th t he AD A a n d th e F MLA. The dis tr i ct c ourtente re d sum m ar y j ud gm ent i n f avo r of P T I. W e re vie w t h a t d ec isio n d e n ov o. N ar duc civ. M o o re, 572 F.3d 313, 318 (7th Cir. 2009).

A D A C laim Basden c l ai m s that PTI vi ol ate d the A DA w h en it d en ied h er req u es t fo r a 3 0-d ay lea ve an d i n s t ea d te rm inated her

. To pr evai l o n an A D A cla i m , a pla i nti ffm ust show that ( 1) she i s d i sabl ed; ( 2) she i s o ther w i se quali fi ed to per f or m the ess enti alfuncti ons ofherj ob w i th o r w i thout re aso nabl e a ccom m odati on; and (3) her em plo yer too k an advers e j ob acti on aga i nst her because o fh e r d i s a b i l i t y o r w i th o u tma k i n ga r e a s o n a b l e a c c o mm odati on for it. Winsky v . Co o kC o un ty, 563 F. 3d 598, 603 (7th Cir. 2009). T o surv ive a m o t ion for su m m ary j ud gm ent, she m ust pre sent th e c ourtwith e vi dence that, i fb el i ev ed bya t r i ero ff ac t, woul d estab l i she ac h o fthe ele m en ts of he r c laim

. K o tw ica v. R o se P a ck ing C o ., Inc ., 637 F. 3d 744, 748 ( 7th Cir
. 2011 )
. I n the prese nt ca se , B asden f ai l ed to pre sent suffi ci ent e vi d en c e that s he was qu ali fi ed to per f or m the ess enti alfuncti ons ofherj ob ev enwi tha r ea so nabl e ac co m m o dat i o n. A n em plo yer i s gener al l y perm i tte d t o tr eatregular att e nd a nc e a s a n e s s e nt i a l j o b r e qu i r e men ta nd n e e d n ot a c c o m m od at e e rra tic or u n re liab le a tt en d an c e. EEOCv.N o. 11

- 2880 5 Yello w F reigh t Sy stem , Inc., 253 F.3d 943, 948-49 (7th Cir. 2001 )
. A pla i nti ff w hose disabi l i ty preve nts her f ro m com i ng to work re gu lar ly cannot perf or m the ess enti al fu n c tio n s o f h er j ob , an d th u s c an n o t b e a qu alifie d ind ivid u al for A D A p u rp os es . Wagg o ner v. O lin C o rp., 169 F. 3d 481, 484 -85 (7 th Ci r. 19 99)
. H erabi l i ty to com e t o w or k, o r to othe rwis e per f or m t h e esse nti alfuncti ons of h e r j o b , i s e xa mi n e d a s o fth e t i me o fth e a d v e r s e e mp l oy m en t d ec isio n atiss u e. A m m o ns v . Ara m a rk U nifo rm Serv ices, Inc., 36 8 F .3d 80 9, 81 8 (7 th C ir. 20 04 ). In re sponse to an em plo yer ’ s m ot ion f orsum m ar y j ud gm ent, i t i s the pl ai nti ff’ s bur den to produce ev i dence su fficie n t t o p e r m it a j u ry to co n c lu d e t h at sh e w ou ld have been abl e t o perf or m the ess enti alfunc ti ons of h er job w ith a re as on ab le a c c om m od at ion
. H am m e l v. Eau G a lle C heese Fa cto ry, 407 F.3d 852, 863-64 (7th Cir. 2005). A s o fthe M ay 2008 te rm i nati on o fherem plo ym ent, Basden had been tol d by physi ci ans th at it w as l i k el y tha t sh e ha d M S , b ut h ad no t y ets ee n the speci al i st w ho m ade the concl usi ve diagnosi s o fher con d iti on. Th e record i n d ica tes th at sh e d id n ot start m edi cati on f orM S unti l J uly20 08. The r e c o r d do e s no t s ho w the e xt e nt t o whi c h that m edi ca ti o n a l l ev i at ed he r sy m pto m s. At h erde po si ti o n, p lain tiff t es t i f i e d th at h er co n d itio n got w or se “a co u p le ti m es ” after she l eft PTI, the n “ l ev el ed o ff

. ” H erne xt em p loy m en t w as w ith a c om p an y c alle d “K oc h O rig in als .” W hi l e the r eco rd does notexpl i ci tl y deta i l the len gt h of Bas d en ’ s s tayatKoch, herdeposi ti on t est i m ony does su g g es t th athe r t en ur e w as sho r t. S he r ec al l ed th ats he6 N o. 11

- 2880

w or ked atKoch du ri ng S eptem ber20 08, and at her June 201 0 deposi ti on, she tes ti fi ed that she had j ust be

gun a ne w part
- ti m e pos i ti on a fterbeing unem plo yed f o r a ppr o xi m at el y a yeara nd a ha l f

. W hi l e wor k i ng at K och, Basden had a t w o- w eekabs ence that she a ttr ibuted t o M S. Even with a l l r eas onabl e i nfe re nces f rom the f or ego i ng drawn i n Basden’s f avo r, we cannot concl ud e that the ev i dence ofhersubse que nt em plo ymen two ul d p e r mi ta j ur y t o fi nd tha tthe c o mbi nati on ofl eave and m edi cation would have enabl ed her to re turn t o w or k o n a r egul arbas i s. Bas dendi d no t pr es en t m edi ca l e vi d en ce r eg ar di ng th e eff ec ti ve ne ss o fhe r t r ea tment
. At h erde po si ti o n, s he tes ti fi ed onl y that a t the ti m e s he r equeste d l eave fro m PTI, she had hoped that a di agno si s fro m a speci al i st and the use o f p re scr i pti on m edi cati on would al l ow her to r etur n t o wor k

. I n Weigel v . Ta rg e t Sto res, 122 F. 3d 461, 46 8-6 9 (7 th C ir. 19 97 ), th is c ou rtfo u n d t h at an affid av it f ro m the pla i nti ff’ s psy c hi atr i st sta ti ng tha t “ ther e was a g oo d chance” that s he would be l ikel y t o be abl e t o r eturn to wor kwi tht r ea tmentwas t o o c o nc l us o r y a nd u n i n f o r ma t i v e t o s u p p o r ta c o n c l u s i o n th a ta n a c c o mm od ation w o uld hav e been suc cess ful. Th e cou rt af f i r med s ummar y j ud g men ti n f a v o r o fthe e mpl o yer be c a u s e o fth e p l a i n t i ff’ s in a b i l i t y t o e s t a b l i s h th e e xi ste nce o fa genu i ne i ssue off act on the questi on o fher st at u s as a q u alifie d in d ivid u al w ith a d isa b ility

. Id. at46 9. I n th e p r e s e n tc a s e , B a s d e n r e s p o n d e d t o P TI ’ s s u mmar y j ud g men tmo t i o n wi th e v i de nc e tha tme di cati on i mpr o v e d h e r c o nd i t i o n; tha ts he h a d h o pe d f o r e no ug hN o. 11

- 2880 7 i m prove m ent t o re turn to w or k r egul ar l y a fterl eave ; and that s he subse quentl y had br i efem plo ym ent that w as i nter rupted by a t w o- w eekabs ence caused by her condi ti on. Thi s e vi dence w as i nsuffici ent t o supp or t a factu al find ing tha t B asd en w as able to com e to w ork re gul ar l y a t the ti m e o fherte rm in at i on, o r that her r egul ara tt en dan ce c o ul d ha ve b ee n e xpe ct ed f o l l o wi ng th e l ea ve s he s o ug hto r wi tha ny o th era cc o m m o dat i o n. Basden c onte nd s t h at H a sch m a nn v. Tim e Wa rner E nterta inm ent C o ., 151 F. 3d 591 ( 7th Ci r. 19 98) , supports her ar gum en t for r eve rs alo fthe dist ri ct c ourt, but the f acts prese nted to the H as ch m ann co u rtare d ist i n g u ish ab le f r o m tho se a t i ss ue he r e. I n H as ch m ann , t he plaintiff h ad b e e n d iag n os ed be for e h er te rm in at ion w ith a c on d iti o n tha t ca us ed an“ i nt er m i tt ent” ne ed f o r l ea ve b ut pe rm i tte d her re turn t o a no rm alwork schedule ther eaf te r . 1 5 1 F
. 3 d a t5 9 9

- 6 0 0
. T he p l a i nt i ff’ s p r e di c t i o n of a brief ne ed f or l eave w as su p p o r t e d b y her d octor. Id. at60 1. I n contr ast, atthe ti m e o fBasden’s te rm i nati o n, s he h a d n o fi na l di a g no s i s , n o p r e s c r ib e d t r e atm en t, and no anti ci pated date by w hi ch she cou ld ha ve b ee n e xpe ct ed to a tt en d wor kr egul ar l y e ve n i fs he had been g ra nted l eave . Bas dena l so a r g ue s th atPTIf ai l ed to e ng age inthe i nter act ive a c c om m odati on e xplor ati on pro cess r equir ed by the AD A and that i t d id n ot establ i sh that th e lea ve sh e s ou gh t w as u n re as on ab le. Sh e c or re c tly note s that a n em plo yee ’ s r equest f oran a ccom m odati on re quire s the e m plo yerto enga ge i n a fl exibl e, inter acti ve p ro c es s to id en tify a rea so n ab le a c c om m od at ion
. Bec k v.8 N o. 11

- 2880 U niv ersity o

f Wisco nsin B d
. o

f R egen ts, 75 F. 3d 1130 , 11 35 (1 99 6)
. Ba sde n s o ug hta 3 0- dayl ea ve tha t, a cc o r di ng to PTI’ s pol i cy, s he would have bee n el i gibl e t o re quest w i th two weeks’ addit i onalse ni or i ty. Ratherthan engag e i n an i nter acti ve proce ss, PTI deni ed the re quest f o r l e a v e a nd t e r mi na t e d he r . Onthe r e c o r d p r e s e nt e d, w e ca n n o t con clud e tha t PT I ’s respon se to B asd en ’s r e q u e s twa s a p p r o p r i a t e u n d e r th e AD A. H owever, the f ai l ure to engag e i n the i nter acti ve pr o ce ss r equi r ed bythe A DA i s no t ani nde pen den t b as is for liab ility u n d er th e s ta tu te , an d th at failu re is acti onabl e o nl y ifi t pr eve nts i denti fi cati on o fan a pp ro p ria te ac c om m o d at ion for a qu alifie d ind ivid u al. Reh l i ng v. Ci ty of

Chi cago, 207 F.3d 100 9, 1016 ( 7th Cir. 2000). E ve n if an em plo yerf ai l s t o engag e i n the re quir ed p r o c e s s , th a tf a i l u r e n e e d n o tb e c o n s i de r e d i fth e e mpl o y ee f ai l s to pr es en t ev iden ce s uffi ci en t to r ea chthe j ury on the q ue stion of w he th er she w as able to pe rf o r m th e e s s e n t i a l fu n c t i o ns o fh e r j o b w i th a n a c c o mm od at ion
. B o m ba rd v. Fo rt Wa yn e N ew spa pers, Inc., 92 F. 3d 56 0, 56 3-6 4 (7 th C ir. 19 96 ). B ec au se th er e w as n o e vid en c e per m i tti ng a concl usi on that Basden was a qu ali fi ed i nd ivi d ua l for A D A pu r p o ses, the d istri ct cou rt cor re ctl y e nter ed sum m ar y j ud gm ent f orPTI o n her A DA cla im d espi te any s hor tco m i ngs in PTI’ s r esponse to her re quest.

FM L A C laim Basden al so soughtrelie ffro m PTI f ori nter f er ence w i th herFM LA r i ghts. I t i s undis p uted that Basden w asN o. 11

- 2880 9 ter m i nated be f or e s he had been e m p l oye d by PTIf or 12 m onths. A ccor ding to the s tatute’ s e xpli ci t ter m s, em p loy ee s w ith ou t 1 2 m o n th s o f te n u re are ine ligib le f ori ts prot ecti on. 29 U
. S. C. § 2 611( 2)(A ) ( I )
. Basden ar gues that the s tatute s houl d not be i nter pret ed t o precl ud e relief f ornon- el i gibl e e m plo yee s who re quest l e a v e f o r futur e p er i o ds

. Ho we v e r, h e r r e qu e s t, ma de be f o r e sh e w as el i g ibl e f o r F M LA pr o te ct i o n, s o ug ht l eave thatwould have com m enced b efo re herel i gibi l i ty be g an . Ba sde n c i te s no a utho r i tyf o r e xten d i ngthe sta tute’ s pro tect i ons to her si tuati on, and ar gum ents f or such exte ns ion hav e be en squar el y r ej ecte d el sewhere. “There can be no doubt that th e request

— m ade by an i nel i gibl e e m plo yee for l eave thatwould beg i n w hen sh e w ou ld st ill ha ve be en in e l i g ible

— i s no t pr ote cted b y th e FM LA
. ” Wal ke rv. ElmoreCounty Boar d of Educ ., 37 9 F .3d 12 49 , 125 3 (1 1t h C ir. 20 04 ). W e f i n d n o b as is f orsuch e xtensi on her e a n d hol d that the di str i ct cour t pr oper l y g ra nted sum m ar y j ud gm ent f orPTI o n B a s d e n ’ s F ML A c l a i m. Forth e for ego i ng r eas ons, the j ud gm ent o fthe dist r i c tc o ur ti s a ffi r med

.

5- 8- 13