A f ter exam ini ng the brief s and the rec ord, we have concluded  thatoral argu m ent is unneces sar y. Thu s, the app eal i s subm it ted on the bri ef s and the rec ord. S ee F ED . R. A PP . P . 34 (a )(2).



## 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. 08

- 2052 G AIL K I NG, Plai nt i f f

- Appe l l ant, v. C ITY OF M A DI S ON, D efend a nt-A pp ellee.

Appeal from the United S tates District Court fo r the Western Di stricto f Wisc onsin

. No . 07 -cv-295 -bb c

—Barb ara B. C rab b , Chief Judge.
S UB MI TT ED O CT OB ER 8, 2008

— D ECI DE D D ECE MBE R 4, 2008 

Befo re R IPPLE, W OO D , a nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges. W OO D , C ircu it Judge. G a i l K i n g s u e d he r f o r me r e mp l o y e r, t h e C i t y o f Ma d i s o n, Wi s c o n s i n, c l a i mi n g t ha t th e Cityf ai l ed to acc om m odate her disabi l i ty i n vi ol ati on o f th e Am er i ca ns wi thDi sabi l i ti es Act, 4 2 U. S

. C. § 1 21 12 , a nd2 N o. 08

- 2052 th e Re h a b ili tation A ct, 29 U

. S. C

. § 794. T he district cou rt gr anted sum m ar y j ud gm ent to the City and l ate r d en i ed K ing’s m otion to alter or am en d the j ud gm en t un d er F ED
. R. C IV
. P. 59(e). W e hav e review e d the d istri ct cou rt’s dec i si o n deno vo ; fi n d i n g n o e r r o r, w e a f fi r m. Ki ng wor k ed f o r th e Ci ty as a tr an si t o per ator (m ore coll oqu ial ly, a b us d river) u nt ilshe be cam e un able to w ork f ro m the com bi ned eff ect ofse ver al f ac to rs : a hi gh- ri sk preg nancy, di abet es, and m i gr ai ne headaches

. S he r eque st ed, a nd the Ci tya ppr o ve d, l ea ve w i th o utpay b eg i nni ngo n F eb r ua r y 2 3, 2003. I ni ti al l y Ki ngwas pl ac ed o n a si x-m onth di sabi l i ty l eave o fabs ence, and l ate r she was tr ansfer re d to l ayo f fst atus f ora peri od ofei ghtee n m onths. Du ri ng her disabi l i ty l ayo f f and f ol l owing her preg nancy, Ki ngwas t r ea te d f o r c hr o nic d iabe te s, he ada ch es , a nd in te rm itt en t, se ve re d izz in es s. Ki ng ’ s j o b was g o ve r ne d b y a c o l l ec ti ve b ar g ai ni ng agreem en t betw een the C ity and th e I nt erna tional Broth erho o d o fTe amst er s L ocal6 95

. The c o l l ec ti ve b ar g ai ni ng ag r ee m en t st at ed th atdur i ngdi sabi l i tyl ay o f f, Ki ng re ta in ed th e rig h t “ to d isp lac e th e m os t jun ior e m p loy ee in any j ob cl ass i fi cati on e qual to orl ower i n ra nge than hi s o r her or i gi nal posi ti on withi n the bar gai ni ng un i t. ” S he al so ha d the r i g htt o fi l l a ny v ac an t po si ti o n wi th i n h erb ar g ai ni nguni t f o r whi chs he was qual i fi ed an d r et ai ne d the r i g ht to com pet e f o r v ac an t Ci typo si ti o ns i n o th erb ar g ai ni ng unit s. A f tershe had been o n l eave f orapproxi m ate l y f ourt een m onths, K in g rec ei ved herphysi ci an’ s a uthor i zati on t o re turn to w ork, but the doct orbar re d her fro m dri vi ng aN o. 08

- 2052 3 bus

. Ba se d o n Ki ng ’ s se ni o r i ty an d cl as si fi ca ti o n r an g e, the onl y po s i t i o n t ha t s he ha d a r i g ht t o de man d wi thi n her bar gai ni ng uni t w as that oftr ansi t o perat or . H erm edi cal re str i cti ons, however, r ule d th at j ob out. King w anted to bum p i nto an “o perat i ons tech I I ” posi ti on, but she was not el i gibl e f ori t be cause the j ob w as i n a hi ghercl ass i fi cati on ra nge than her tr an si t o perat orposi ti on. S he appli ed f or fi ve v ac an t cl er i ca l po si ti o ns i n o th er ba r g ai ni ng uni ts b ut w as n ot se lec te d as th e m os t q u alifie d ap p lica n t. A fter tw o years of leave, th e C ity term in a ted K ing’s em plo ym ent, as i t w as enti tl ed to do u nd ersecti on 2 0. 8 o f th e co l l ec ti ve b ar g ai ni nga g r ee m en t. Sh e the n s ue d the City, as ser ti ng tha t i t had unl aw full y f ai l ed to ac com m od ate h er disab il ity. Th e d istri ct cou rt grante d sum m a ry j ud gm ent i n f avo r ofthe City, hol ding that K i ng was not a qu a l i fi e d i nd i v i du a l wi t h a di s abi l i t y u nd e r the ADA b ec au se h er m ed ica l c on d itio n s d id n ot s u b st an tia lly lim it he r i n the m aj or li fe activity of w orking. T he district cou rt fur th er he l d th at th e Ci ty ha d pr o vi ded he r wi tha r ea so nab l e a c c o mm odati on, not i ng tha t the Ci ty had no ob l i gat i on to ov er rid e t h e la b or co n tr ac t o n K in g’s be h alf. Ki nga sk ed th e di st r i ctc our t to r ec o ns i deri ts r ul i ng base d on newly ac qu i r e d e vi dence. The co urt const rued her re quest a s a m oti on t o am end or al terthe j ud gm ent under R u l e 5 9 ( e )

. I n th a tmo t i o n, K i n g p r e s e n t e d f o r th e fi r s tt i me ev i de nc e tha tthe S t a t e o fWi s c o ns i n ha d f o un d h e r di sab led for p u rp os es o fs t at e la w , an d sh e a rg u ed th at th is evi dence co ntra dict ed the dist ri ct c ourt’s c oncl usi on that sh e w as no t d is a b led u nd er the A D A

. Th e d istri ct cou rt den i ed th e m o ti o n, not i ngtha t Ki ngha d no t ex pl ai ne d why4 N o. 08

- 2052

On S ept em ber 25 , 20 08 the Pr es i dents i gne d t he Am er i c ans 
w ith D is abili ti es A ct A m endm ents of 2008, Pub

. L. N o. 110- 325, 12 2 Sta t
. 35 53

. The s e am en dm en t s , whi c h a m en ded a nd ar gua b l y b r o a d e n e d t h e A D A ’ s d e fi n i t i o n o f“ d i s a b i l i t y , ” b e c o me eff ect ive J anuary 1, 2009, and theref ore do not app ly to this cas e. she had not subm i tte d the evi dence sooner

. The co urt al so o bs er ve d tha t th e st at e’ s fi ndi ngo fdi sabi l i ty ha d no bear i ng o n the q u est i on wh etherKing w as disabl ed f or p u rp os es of th e A D A

. To sur vi ve the City ’ s m oti on f orsum m ar y j ud gm ent o n he r f ai l ur e- to
- ac co m m o dat e cl ai m , K i ngnee ded t o pr es en t evi dence that, i fbel i eve d by a tr i er of f act, w oul d s how that she i s a quali fi ed i nd i vi du al with a di sabi l i ty, thatthe City w a s a wa r e o f he r di s a b i l i t y , a nd t ha t t he Ci t y f a i l e d to re aso nabl y a cco m m odate that disabi l i ty. S ee EEO C v. Se ars , Roe b uc k & C o. , 4 17F

. 3d 78 9, 7 97( 7th Ci r . 2 00 5)

. The Re ha bi l i ta ti o n Act, w hi cha ppl i es t o pr o g r ams r ec ei vi ng f edera l fi nan c ialas si sta nce, al so re quir es em plo yer s t o ac co m m o dat e qua l i fi ed i ndi vi dual s wi tha di sabi l i tya nd i nc o r po r a t es t he s t a nd a r ds o fthe ADA. S e e 2 9 U. S

. C. § 7 94 (d ); G a rg v . P o tter, 521 F .3 d 7 3 1 , 736 (7th C ir. 2008); Jac ks on v. Ci ty of

Chi cago , 414 F.3d 806 , 810 (7th C ir. 2005). Even i fwe ass um e that K i ng i s disabl ed f or pu rpos es of the AD A , she coul d not s urvi ve the C i ty’ s m oti on f or


su m m ar y j udg m en t be ca us e th e Ci typr o vide d he r wi tha r ea so na bl e ac co m m o dat i o n. Ki ng i s co r r ec t to no te tha t th e A DA r eco gni zes r eas si gnm ent t o a v acant posi ti on a s a potenti al l y r eas onabl e a c com m odati on i fa disabl ed em p loyee i s un able to p erform th e essen tial fun ctions of aN o. 08

- 2052 5 j ob. 42 U

. S. C

. § 12111(9)(B). O n th e othe r han d , em p loyers ar e no t r equi re d “ ’ to re ass i gn a disabl ed em plo yee to a posi ti on wh en suc h a transferwould vi ol ate a l egi ti m ate , nondisc ri m i nator y pol i cy ofthe em plo yer . ’ ” EE O C v. H um is ton-Keel ing, Inc. , 227 F. 3d 1024 , 1028 ( 7th Cir

. 20 00) ( quoti ng D alton v. Subaru- Is uzu A uto. , Inc. , 14 1 F

. 3d 667, 67 9 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 8) )

. Nondi sc r i m i nator y hi r i nga nd r ea ss i g nme n tp r o v i s i o n s o fa c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g a g r e ement q u alify a s s u c h a p olic y. Wi nf r ey v. Ci ty of

Chi cago , 25 9 F

. 3d 61 0, 61 8 (7 th C ir. 20 01 ). The r e c o r d s h o ws th a tth e C i t y c o mpl i e d wi t h the col l ecti ve bar gai ni ng agre em ent a nd co nsi dered King f or othe r vacantposi ti ons. Based o n the plac em ent pol i ci es conta i ned i n the agr eem ent, however, King had no r i ght t o bump an o th er empl o y ee f r o m the o th era va i l ab l e po si ti o ns w i thi n her co l l ecti ve bar gai ni ng uni t. S he f ai l ed i n her eff or t to obt ai n a pos i ti on o utsi de her uni t be cause she was not the m ost qu ali fi ed ca n d id a t e . A s far as th is r ecord sh o ws, the Ci tya ppl i ed i ts d isabi l i tyl ay o f fpo l i ci es i n a ne ut r al, no ndi sc r i m i na to r y way a nd a cc o m m o dat ed Ki ng as f ar as i t co uld. S ee Winfrey , 25 9 F

. 3d at 618 ( hol ding that em plo yerw as not requi re d to ass i gn di sabl ed em plo yee to j o b r es er ve d f o r uni o n mem be r s unde r co l l ec ti ve b ar g ai ning agreem en t); Hu mi s t o n - Ke e l i ng, 227 F. 3d at 1026

- 27 ( hol ding that em plo yer w as not re quir ed to r eas si gn disabl ed w ar ehouse pi cker to cl er i calposi ti on i fshe w as not the m ost qu ali fi ed ap p li can t ac c ord ing to em p loyer’ s non d iscrim inatory p oli cy). Fi nal l y, K in g arg ues that the di str i ct c ourtsho uld have gr anted herm oti on under Rule 59 (e) o n the gr ound of6 N o. 08

- 2052

n ew ly d isc ov er ed ev id en c e. K i n g c on te n d s t h at th is evi dence, i n conj uncti on with the disabi l i ty deter m i nati on ba se d o n W i sc o ns i n l aw , w ou l d m ak e i t cl ea r tha t th e Ci ty ’ s eff o r ts fel l s ho r t o fr ea sonab l e ac co m m o dat i o n. K i ng’ s new evi dence, how eve r, w as avai l abl e to h er th r o u gh ou t the l iti gation, and the d istri ct cou rt therefore did notabuse i ts disc re ti on i n d en yi ng the m oti on. S ee C o u n ty o f Mc H e n ry v . In s . C o . o f t h e W. , 43 8 F

. 3d 813, 81 9 (7t h C ir. 20 06 ); N eal v. N ewspaper H old in g s, Inc. , 34 9 F

. 3d 36 3, 36 8 (7 th C ir. 20 03 ). A ccor dingl y, we A FFIRM the j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct cour t.

12- 4- 08