## 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

F EBRU ARY 2, 20 09

B efo re F RANK H. E A S T E RB R OO K, Chie f Judg e R I CHA RD A. P OSNER, Cir cu i tJudg e J OEL M. F LA UM, Cir cu i tJudg e M ICHAEL S. K ANN E , Cir cu i tJudg e I LA NA D I AMOND R OV NER, Cir cu i tJudg e D IANE P. W OO D , Cir cu i tJudg e T ER ENCE T. E VANS, Cir cu i tJudg e A NN C LAI RE W I L L I A MS, Cir cu i tJudg e D IANE S. S YKES, Cir cu i tJudg e J OHN D ANIEL T INDER, Cir cu i tJudg e
N o. 06

- 3278 E QUA L E MPLO YMENT O PP O RTUN ITY C OM MI S S I ON, P laint if f-A ppell ant, v.
L EE ’ S L OG C ABIN , I NCO RPORATE D , D efend a nt-A pp ellee.2 N o. 06

- 3278

C ir cuitJ ud ge W il li am s has writ ten an opinion, w hich  J udges Rovne r, W ood, an d Evans h ave j oi ne d, di s s en t i ng f ro m the den i al ofthe pe t i t i on.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the Western Di stricto f Wisc onsin

. No . 05 C507

—Barb ara B. C rab b , Chief Judge.

The sl i p opi ni on i ssued on October 6, 2008 , i s A MEND ED to add the f ol l owing l anguage atthe en d o f fo otno te 4 on page 12 : W e ca u tio n t hat no thi ng i n thi s o pini on s houl d be re ad to sugge st that the EEO C’s com p laint f ai l ed to sta te a cl ai m ; we hol d onl y that the di str i c t c ou rtwas w ith in its d isc re t i o n t o re fu se to p er m it a ch an ge in th e c laim u n d er th e p ro c e d u r a l circ u m st an c es of th is c as e. Otherwise , o n consi de ra tio n ofthe peti ti on f orpanel re hear i ng a n d fo r re hear i ng en banc, a m aj or i ty ofj ud ges ha ve voted to d e n y rehearing

. Circu it J ud ges R ovn er,  W oo d, Evans, and W i l l i am s v ote d to gr ant e n banc r ehear i ng. I t i s th er efo r e o r der ed th at th e pet i ti o n f o r r eh ea r i nga nd f orr ehear i ng en banc i s D ENI ED
.N o. 06

- 3278 3 W I L L I A MS, Cir cu i tJudg e, joi ned by R OV NER, W OO D , a nd E VANS, C ircu it Judges , d issent ing from th e d en ialof rehea ri ng e n b anc . Ido n ot t h in k that the EEO C everchange d its c l ai m i n thi s ca se . I t al l eg ed th ata r es ta ur an t im p ro p er ly re fu se d to h ire a yo u n g w om an “b ec au se it lea rn ed sh e w as H IV p os itiv e” an d th en s u b m i tt ed ev idence thatshe had “A I DS” to pro ve she w as disabl ed enough f orA DA pro tect i on. The EEO C w as pu ni shed f or d oi ng so ( i ts sancti on was thatcr i ti calev i dence w as str i cken, l eaving a fi cti ti ous “evi denti ar y voi d”), be c au se the di str i ct c ourttho ught swit chi ng the di sabi l i ty f ro m H I V ( i n th e co m pl aint ) to AI DS atthe s um m ar y j udg m en t s t a g e wa s a “ g r o s s de pa r t ur e fr o m wha t[ the EE OC] al l ege d.” N otwithstandi ng the uncontr ove rt ed f act that AI DSi s j u s ta n o th e r n a me fo r th e l a s ts t a g e o fHI V , the m aj o r i tya ffi r m ed th e di st r i ctc o ur t’ s r ul i ngtha t th e E E O C “ r e f a s h i o n [ e d ] i t s c l a i m a s o n e b a s e d o n A I DS ra th er th an H IV .” I n my v i ew, o ur treatmento fthi s ca se r ai se s se r i o us que st i o ns abo uto ur a ppr o ac h t o A DA c as es i nv o l ving com ple x dis abi l i ti es. Giv en the pro cedu ra l ci rcum sta nces ofthi s ca se, wh er e the m aj or i ty re lies on a purpor ted disc onnect between the com pla i nt and th e evi dence subm i tte d at the sum m ar y j ud gm ent s tag e r atherthan di sc o ve r y v i o l at i o ns , Ithi nkthi s ca se mer i ts r eh earing en banc. To sum up the ca se ver y b ri efl y: Korr i n St ew ar t, wh o w as 18 yea rs ol d at the ti m e, appli ed f ora posi ti on a s a w ai tr ess atLog Cabi n. A m anage r at the r est aurantdi sc ov er ed sh e w as infe c te d w ith H IV an d w r ot e “ H IV +” in4 N o. 06

- 3278 l ar g e ca pi ta l l et ters ac r o ss he r a ppl i ca ti o n. The r es ta ur an t di d no t hi r e S te war t. The EEOC fi l ed a co m pl ainta l l eg i ng that Log C abi n re fused to hi re S tewart “beca use i t l ear ned she was H I V posi ti ve. ” At the s um m ar y j u d gm ent s tag e, the EEO C subm i tte d ev id ence that St ew ar t’ s co nd i ti on ( w hi ch the affi davi ts re f erto as “AIDS” or“HIV/A I DS”) su b st an tia lly l i m its on e o r m or e o f h er m ajor life a c tiv iti es. The di str i ct c ou r ta c knowle dged that St ew ar t’ s di sea se cau sed serious li m itations on a n um ber of m aj or l ife ac ti vi ti es , i nc l udi ngs el f

- ca r e, e a t in g, a n d r e p r o d u c ti o n. But the dist ri ct cour t str uck the affi davi ts on the b as is of it s j ud gm ent that a d i sabi l i ty cl ai m based on A I DS i s a “g ro ss d ep ar tu r e ” fr om a c laim ba se d on “b ein g H IV p os itiv e.” T h e E E O C ’s e vid en c e o n ly p er ta in ed t o th e “A ID S c laim ,” r e a s o ne d the c o ur t, and co ul d n o tb e c o ns i de r e d t o wa r ds the “ H I V cl ai m . ” Because the cour t coul d find no evi dence thatHI V ( r a t h e rt h a n A IDS ) subst anti al l y i m pai re d any o f St ew ar t’ s m aj orl i f e a cti vi ti es, i t g ra nted sum m ar y j ud gm en t to Lo gCabi n. T he maj o r i t y o p i n i o n a ffi r me d th e d i s t r i c tc o u r to n t wo g r ou nd s t ha t ar e pr o bl emat i c to me a nd mer i t enb an c cons i de r a t i o n. F i r s t, b y ho l di ng tha t the EEO C f a i l ed to g i v e a d e q u a t e n o t i c e t o L o gC a b i n w h e n i t s c o mpla i nt al l ege d that S tewart w as H I V posi ti ve ( ra ther tha n s pe c i fy i ngtha th e r HI V ha d a dv a nc e d t o t he AI DS sta ge), t he m aj or i ty i m posed a hi gherpl eadi ng r equi re m ent forl i ti gants with m ult i

- sta ge d isa bi l i ti es. A l though th i s ca se was no t dec i ded o n a Rul e 12 ( b) (6) m oti o n, the EEOC was no t al l o wed t o r el y o n e vi den ce r egard i ng St ew ar t’ s di sabi l i ty (A I DS) f orthe sol e r eas on that i ts com p lai nt all eged only “H I V pos iti ve.” Second , the m aj or-N o. 06

- 3278 5 i tycr ea te d a spe ci fi c k no wl edg e r equi r ementi n s i tu at i o ns involving em p loyers w ho are aw are of a d isabil ity but are not aw ar e o fthe actualexte nt o fthatdi sabi l i ty. I b e g i n w ith th e la tt er p ro b lem . Th e m ajorit y w ou ld re quire an em plo yerto kno w the extent to w hi ch a j ob appli cant i s di sabl ed i n or der t o be he l d liab l e f or m aki ng d ec isio ns bas ed on that di sabi l i ty. S l i p op. at12 , n. 4 ( s pe c ul a t i ng tha t the r e a s o n the EEO C di d not ple ad A I DS i n i ts com pla i nt i s that there was no e vi dence Log Cabi n w as aw ar e S tewart had A I DS, wh i ch pro vi ded an o th erb as i s to affi r m s um m ar y j udg m en t)

. The r e i s no d isp u te th at L og C ab in kn ew Ste w ar t w as H IV p os iti ve

— i nd ee d som eone atLog Cabi n w ro te i t a cro ss her j o b appl i ca ti o n i n l ar g e bl ac kl et te r s. ButLo gCabin mai ntai ne d ( a nd r e i t e r a t e s i n i t s a ns we r ) tha t i t di d no t k now S te war t’ s H I V h ad pr o g r es se d t o the AI DS s ta g e an d a r g ue d tha t i t c o ul d no t b e he l d l i a b l e un de r the A DA f or t a kin g a n ad ve rs e a c tio n ag ain st an ind ivid u al w h en it had no kno w l edge o fherdi sabi l i ty. B y h ol ding that Log Cab i n’ s l a c ko fkno wl e dg e r e g ar din gS t e wa r t ’ s AI DS d iag nos is provid ed an alterna tive basis forsum m ary j ud gm ent, the m aj or i ty cre ate d a speci fi c know l edge re qui r ementtha t g o es b ey o nd o ur ho l di ngi n He d b e rgv. Ind. Bell Tel

. Co

. , Inc. , 47F. 3d 928, 93 2 ( 7th Ci r. 19 95) an d c on flict s w ith th e D .C . C irc u it ’ s h old in g in Ada m s v. R ice, 531 F.3d 936, 953-54 (D

. C

. Cir. 2008). Cert a i nl y a n ADA pl a i nt i ffmus tde mon s t r a t e a c a us al connect i on be tw een a n em plo yer ’ s a dvers e a c tion and i ts kn o w l e d ge of h er d isa b ility

. H edberg, 47 F .3d at93 2. In H edberg, h owever, the em plo yerh ad no know l edge what-6 N o. 06

- 3278

soe verthatthe pla i nti ffwas eve n i l l wh en i t deci ded to d isc h ar ge h im

. See id

. ( “At th e m o stb as i c le ve l, i t i s i ntui ti ve l y c l ea r whenv i ewi ngthe ADA ’ s l an guag e i n a straig h tforw ard m an ne r that an em p loyer cann ot fi re an em plo yee ‘ because o f ’ a disabi l i ty unle ss i t kn ows of th e d isabi l i ty
. I fi t do es no t k no w ofthe di sabi l i ty, the em plo yeri s fi ri ng the em plo yee ‘ because o f ’ so m e o ther reason . ”). A n i m port ant quest i on i s whether an em plo yerm ust know how f aradvanced a disabi l i ty has p ro gr ess ed to b e l i a b l e u nd e r the ADA. T he maj o r i t y s a y s y e s , b utIdo n ot th in k t h e A D A im p os es su c h a re q u i r e m e n t. C f. San gl ap v . La Sal l eBank, FS B , 345 F.3d 515 , 520 (7t h Cir. 2003 ) ( “[ L]i abi l i ty f ordi sabi l i ty disc ri m i natio n d oes not requ ire p rofessional un d erstan d ing of th e plaintiff’s condi ti on. . . . I t is eno ugh to sho w thatthe defe nd ant knew ofsy m p to m s r ai si ng an i nfe re nce that the pl ai nti ffwas d isa b led .”). R ec en tly , t h e D .C . C irc u it c on sid er ed th is very ques ti o n a t l en g thi n A da m s v. R ice and he l d that “it m ake s no di ff er ence w hetheran e m plo yerhas preci se kn ow led ge of an em p loy ee ’s s u b st an tia l lim ita tio n ; as in [ B ragdon v. Abbott, 524 U

. S. 624, 641- 42 ( 1998 ) ], i t is en ou gh for t h e e m p loy er to kn ow ab ou t th e im p air m en t.” 531 F. 3d at 953. I n m y v i ew , the m aj or i ty’ s r equi re m ent c re ate s a n i nsurm ountabl e hurdl e f orA DA pl ai nti ff s with com ple x disabi l i ti es. The A DA pro tect s peopl e with dis abi l i ti es f ro m em plo yer s who do notundersta nd the preci se nature o fthei r disabi l i ti es. Ithi nk i t i s f ai r to say that m ost em plo yer s who dis cri m i nate on t h e ba si s o fa disabi l i tyN o. 06

- 3278 7

ar e i l l

- i nfo rm ed abo ut t h at d i sabi l i ty. W hy sho uld an e mp l o y e r ’ s i g n o r a n c e a b o u t a d i s e a s e ( e s p e c i a l l y a c o mpl i ca te d o ne l i k e H I V, whi ch ha s m an y st ag es an d di ff er en t nam es) shi el d that em plo yer f ro m l i abi l i ty? S e e, e . g . , A d a ms , 53 1 F .3d at 9 5 4 ( “c re at in g a kn ow led ge req u ire m en t in sit u at ion s in vo lvin g p u re d isc rim i n at ion w ou ld sh ield the m osti gnor ant, i rr ati onal, and prej ud i ced em plo yers

— preci sely t h e k i nd s o fem plo yer s Congr ess i ntended th e A ct to reach

. ”). The m aj or i ty’ s hol ding that the EE OC ’ s co m pla i nt f ai l ed to provi de adequate no ti ce t o Log Cabi n cr eat es a new b u r d e n a s we l l

. Th e maj o r i t y f a u l t s th e E E O C o n t wo counts re gar ding noti ce: the EE OC ’ s com pla i n t “gave notic e that i ts A DA cl ai m was gr ounded o n dis cri m i nat i o n be c au se sh e w as H IV p os itiv e, not b e c a us e s he had A I DS, ” s l i p o p. a t9 , a nd the EE OC di d n o ts t a t e that St ew ar t’ s AIDS w as the “ ac tu al basi s f orthe disc ri m i nati on a l l ege d i n the case , ” i d. at10

. Th e m ajor i ty opi ni on cre ate s a r equi re m ent that a n A DA pl ai nti ffm ust pl ead speci fi c f acts r ega rdi ng herdi sabi l i ty, i ncl ud i ng i ts sta ge i fthe di se as e co ns i st s o fmul ti pl e st ag es . A p l aint i ffwho f ai l s t o do so ( as the EEO C d i d h er e b y all eging tha t St ew ar t was H I V posi ti ve and not speci fyi ng tha t s he had AI DS ) r i sk s l o singhe r l aws ui t atthe s um m ar y j udg m en t sta ge. That i s what happened her e, wh er e the EEO C w as pu ni shed f orsubm i tti ng ev i d en ce r ega rdi ng AIDS when i ts com pla i nt al l ege d that S te w ar t had H I V. Even tho ugh A I DS i s mer e l y a s t a g e o f HI V ( S t e wa r t ’ s di s a b i l i ty can be c hara cter i zed as “be i ng H I V posit ive ” a t a l l ti m es r eg ar dl es s o fi ts e xa ct sta g e) , the maj o r i tyhe l d tha t th e EE OC had not provi ded suffi ci ent no ti ce t o Log Cabin to be abl e t o re l y o n thi s e vi dence.8 N o. 06

- 3278 Thi s, t o me, i s i nc o ns i st en t wi thour case l aw r eg ar di ng gener alnot i ce pl eadi ng st andards. W e hav e r eitera ted that a co m pla i nt “nee d not set o u t ei therl ega l theo ri es or com prehensi ve f actualnar ra ti ves. ” R apid Tes t P roducts, Inc. v . D urham School Service s, Inc. , 4 60 F

. 3d 85 9, 8 60 ( 7th Ci r. 2006 ) ( ci ti ng S wi e rki e wi cz v. S ore ma N. A. , 53 4 U.S

. 50 6 ( 2002 ) )

. Rather, al l EEO C w as re quir ed to do w as ple ad i ts gr i evance . That i t di d: i t a l l ege d t h at “Log Cabi n re fused to hi re S tewart because i t l ear ned that she was H I V positiv e.” T h e ex ac t st ag e of H IV is a d et ail

— an d a n i r r el ev an t one at tha t. T he EE O C ’s gri evan ce is w ith L og C a b in ’s ac ti on, w hich i s i l l eg ali fi t was i n f ac t ba se d o n h erHI V. SeeBell A tl antic C orp. v . Tw om bly, 12 7 S

. Ct. 19 55, 19 74 ( 2007 ) ( “we do n o tr e qu i r e h e i g ht e ne d f a c tp l e a di ngo fs pe c i fi cs, b u t o n ly en ou gh fac ts to st at e a cla im to relie f th at is p lausible on its f ace.”). Based on thi s p u rp or ted l ack ofnot i ce, the m aj or i ty up hel d the di str i ct c ourt ’ s deci si on t o str i ke evi dence re gar din g St ew ar t’ s di sabi l i ty ( A I DS) as m ani f est l y r easonab l e be cause the EEO C ref ashi oned its c lai m ( by su bm itti ng eviden ce regard in g A I D S at the su m m ary j u d gm en t s ta ge w h en its co m p lain t re fer en c ed on ly H I V). A s I exp l ai ned i n m y di sse nt, the m aj or i ty’ s pre m i se th a ta c l a i m b a s e d o n H I V i s f a c t u a l l y d i ff e r e n tfr o m a cl ai m b as ed o n AI DS i s i nc o ns i st en t wi ths ci en ti fi c an d m ed ical ex p erience

. T he a m icus briefs p oint out that there i s no s ci en ti fi ca l l y o r medi ca l l y recogni ze d “ br i g htl i ne d i s t i n c t i o n ” b e t we e n H I V a n d A I D S , a n d th e t wo t e r ms ar e o ften use d i nter changeabl y o r si m plyr efer re d to as “H I V/A I DS. ” The m aj or i ty re sponds that “the physi cal eff ec ts o fAI DS a r e di ff er en t

— m ore severe

— tha n tho se as so ci at ed wi thbeingH I V- po si ti ve . ” N o t ac co r di ngt o theN o. 06

- 3278 9 S upr eme Co ur t, whi chno te d i n Brag don tha t “Dur i ng[ th e A I DS] sta ge, t he cl i ni calco nd i ti ons m o st often asso cia ted w it h HIV

, such a s pneum ocy sti s ca rni ni i pneum oni a, K ap osi ’ s s ar com a, and non- H odgki ns l ym phom a, te nd to appear.” 5 24 U

. S. at63 6. A nd notacc or ding to m edi cal ex p er ien c e. T h e am ici ass er t th at th e ter m “A ID S” is sci enti fi cal l y m eani ngl ess bec au se not al l per sons diag

no se d wi thAI DS h ave the s ame s y m pto m s an d wi ththe ad ve n t o fa n tir et ro vir al t h er ap y, so m e p at ien ts are ab le t o r e v e r s e the di s e a s e ’ s p r o g r e s s b utr e t a i n the AI DS di a g no s i s a ny wa y . T he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s a pp r o a c h, as I ex pl aine d fur th eri n m y di ss en t, c o nfl i ct s wi ththe S up r e me C o u r t’ s i ns tr uct i o n i n Brag don th at alt h ou gh “H IV i nfe cti on s ati sfi es the s tatutor y a nd regul ato rydefi ni ti on o fa p h ys ica l im p air m en t a t e ve ry st ag e o f th e d ise as e,” cour ts shoul d m ake di sabi l i ty deter m i nati ons base d on in d ivi d u a l i z ed circ u m st an c es . 524 U .S. at 6 37 . I t a lso is i nc o ns i st en t wi ththe Co ur t’ s i ns tr uct i o n i n Sut t on v. U nited A ir Lin es thatdi sabi l i ti es should b e eval uated on ani ndi vi dual i ze d b as i s r athe r tha n o n g en er al i za ti o ns deri ved fro m the nam e ofa dise ase al one. 52 7 U.S

. 47 1, 48 3 (1999). Ithi nk the m aj or ity ’ s ho l ding cre ate s probl em s f or vi cti m s o fdi scr i m i nati on wh o suffer from H I V and other com pli cate d d i sea ses with m ult i ple st age s. Fo r these r ea so ns , a s wel l a s th o se i n my di ss en tingo pi ni o n, Ir espect full y di sse nt fro m the denia lo fthe p et itio n f or re hear i ng e n b anc .

2- 2- 09