## 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. 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.

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 Ju dge .
A RGUED A PRI L 4, 2007

— D ECI DE D O CT OB ER 6, 2008

Befo re K ANN E , W I L L I A MS, a nd S YKES, C ircu it Judges . S YKES, Cir cu i tJudge . T he Equa l Em pl o y m en t Oppo r tu
ni ty Com m i ssi on ( “EE OC ”) fi l ed su it against Lee’ s Log C abi n re sta urant i n W ausau, W i sco nsi n, cl ai m i ng it vi ol ate d the Am er i cans with Dis abi l i ti es A ct ( “A DA ”) w hen i t r efused to hi re Korr i n K ra use S tewart f ora w ai tsta ff p os iti on be cause she was H I V-posi ti ve. A fterLog Cabi n m ove d f orsum m ar y j ud gm ent, the EE OC swit ched2 N o. 06

- 3278 gea rs and cl ai m ed Log Cabi n did n ot hi re S tewart because sh e h ad A ID S. T h e d ist ric t jud ge th ou gh t t h e s h i f t in fac tu al b as is w as co n s e q u en tia l an d ca m e t oo lat e. A disabi l i ty att ributed to A I DS, the c ou rthel d, i s “ not syn o ny m o us ” wi tha di sabi l i tya tt r ibut ed to b eingHI Vpo s i t i v e. A ddr e s s i ngthe c l a i m a s o r i g i na l l y c o nfi g ur e d, th e c o u r th e l d th e E E O C f a i l e d t o ma k e a th r e s h o l d s h o wi ng tha t S tewart w as a “ quali fi ed in divi du alwith a di sabi l i ty” under the A DA bec ause i t had no t produced ev i den ce tha t be i ngH I V- po si ti ve s ubs ta nt i al l y l i m i te d o ne orm or e o fS tewart’ s m aj orl i fe a cti vi ti es as re quir ed to satisfy the A D A ’s d efi nition of “disab il ity. ” Th e cou rt en tered sum m ar y j udg m en t f o r Lo gCabi n, a nd the EEO C a pp e a l e d. W e affi r m , a l th o ug h o n s l i g ht l y di ffer en t g r ou nd s. The dist ri ct c ourtwas w el l w ithi n i ts disc re ti on i n re fusi ng to en t e r t a i n the EE OC’ s b e l a t e d a t t e mptt o r e c o nfi g ur e i ts claim

. W e nee d not ad d re ss w he th er H I V and A I D S are syno n ym ous foral l purposes under the A DA o r w hether bei ng H I V-posi ti ve ( as dist i nct fro m havi n g A I DS) i s a
“ di s a b i l i t y ” u nd e r the s t a t ut e . T he EE OC’ s f a i l e d a tt e mpt to substi tute f actualpre m i ses le ft a n em pty r eco rd o n w he the r S t e wa r t ’ s HI V i nfe c t i o n l i mi t e d o ne o r mor e o f he r m aj or l ife act ivi ties, and f or that reason sum m ary j ud gm ent was appro pri ate
. I n additi on, Stewart w as not a “ qua lifi ed i nd i vi du al ” under the A DA bec ause the j ob descri pti on f orwait

- sta ffposi ti ons at Log Cabi n re quir ed the abi l i ty to l i ft 2 5- 30 pound s m ult i ple t im es du ri ng a sh ift, and she ind i cate d on herappli cati on that s he had a 1 0

- p o u n d l i ft i n gr e s t r i c t i o n th a tc o u l d n o tb e a c c o mmod a t e d.N o. 06

- 3278 3 I . B a c kg r o und K or ri n K ra use S tew art was bo rn with hum an i m m unodefi ci en cy vir us ( “HI V”) b utwas no t di agno se d unt i l s he w as f ourt een year s ol d. Sho rt l y afterd i agno si s, she l ear ned her H I V al re ady had devel oped in to acqui re d i m m unodefi ci en cys y ndr o m e ( “AI DS ”)
. I n Mar ch2 00 4, whens he w as 18, S tewart re sponded to a new spaper ad f ora w ai tst affpo si ti o n a t Lee’s L og Cab i n, a r es ta ur an t i n W au sa u, W i sco nsi n. S tewart w as aw ar e fro m the j ob des cri pti on th atthe r es ta ur an t’ s wai t- st affha d t o lift be twe en2 5 an d 30 pound s m ult i ple ti m es du ri ng a shi ft; she w ro te on her appli cati on that s he had a l i fti ng r est ri cti on o f10 pound s. The n ex t que st i o n o n the a ppl i ca ti o n a sk ed whethe r a ny acc om m od ations cou ld be m ad e so th at sh e cou ld p erform all of t h e re q u ire d j ob d u tie s, a n d Ste w ar t in d ica te d “n o.” S te war t m aint ains s he v erba l l y t old Lo gCabi n’ s as si st an t m anage r, Curti s Zast ro w , thatherl i fti ng r est rictio n w as te m po r ar y ; Za st r o w deni es s he s ai d a ny thi ngabo utthe re str i cti on be i ng te m pora ry . A m onth went by and Ste w ar t hea rd nothi ng fro m Log Cabi n, so she re turned t o the r est aurant
. Zastr ow tol d her the o w ner, Dean Lee, wh o w as the deci si on- m ake r w i th re spect to new h i re s, w as out ofto w n. Zastr ow al so ask ed St ew ar t i f“s h e w as the g i rlfro m Qual i ty Foo ds. ” That questi on w as p ro m pted by a l aw sui t Zast ro w had re ad a b o uti n the l o c a l pape r . I n 2 0 0 2 the EE OC r e a c he d a set tl em ent o n St ew art’ s be hal fst em m i ng fro m an a l l ega tio n that her then e m plo yer, Qual i ty Foo ds, fi re d her w hen i t l ear ned she was H I V posi ti ve. S tewart confi rm ed she had worke d at Qual i ty Foo ds and then as ked to r evi se4 N o. 06

- 3278

The ow ner nev er i nter view ed Stewart, al though he knew her 1 as a frequent res taurant cust om er. he r Lo gCabi n a ppl i ca ti on. Za st r o w re tr i ev ed i t, a nd St ew ar t no ti ced that“HIV+” w as w ri tte n on the fr ont of t he a p p l i c a t i o n ; Z a s t r o w a c k n o wl e d g e d h e h a d ma de thi s no tat i on. Lee e ventual l y r evi ew ed St ew ar t’ s a pp l i cati on a nd d iscusse d the HIV not ati on with Zastr ow. Lee d ecid ed not to hire Stew art bec au se sh e w as u na ble to l ift m or e than 10 pound s a nd l acke d w ai tr ess i ng exper i ence. 1 A t the ti m e L og Cabi n em plo yed two wait re sse s who had n o p rior w ait re ss in g e x p er ien c e b e f or e b ein g h ire d , in add i ti on t o on e wai tr ess wh o coul d not l i ft hea vy obj ects o v e r h e r h e a d. The EEOC fi l ed su it a l l eg i ngLo gCabi n v i o l at ed th e A DA , 42 U
. S. C. § 1 2101 e ts e q. , b y f ail ing to hire Stew art “bec ause i t l ea r ne d tha t sh e was HI V po si ti ve . ” S te wa rt ac tu ally h ad A ID S, b u t th er e w as n o m en tio n of th at u n til th e E E O C r e s po n d e d t o L o gC a b i n ’ s mo t i o n f o r s u mm ar y jud gm en t. A t t h at p oin t (ab ou t a m on th be for e t ria l) the EEO C fi l ed affi davi ts f ro m S tewart an d herphysi ci an disc ussi ng ho w A I DS ( ori n so m e instance s “ H I V/A I DS”) affecte d S te war t’ s l i fe ac ti vi ti es . Al th o ug h the c o m pl aint al l ege d Log Cabi n disc ri m i nated ag ai nst S tewart because she w as H I V-posi ti ve

— not b e c a us e s he h a d AI DS

— th e EEOC pr es en te d no e vi den ce abo ut ho w be i ngHI Vpo si ti ve a l o ne affected Stew ar t
. M oreover, S tew art’s affi davi t di d n ot pro vi de any i nfo rm ati on about her l i m i ta ti o ns a nd s y m pto m s atthe t i m e sh e appl i ed f o r the wa i t
- s t a ffp o s i t i o n i n 2 0 0 4 , f o c us i ngi ns tea d o n he r s y mp-N o. 06

- 3278 5 to m s a s t h ey ex ist ed atth e t im e s h e s ign ed t h e affid av it i n 2006
. A l so, the EE OC subm i tte d the affi davi t fro m St ew ar t’ s phys ician even though the age ncy had f ai l ed to ti m el y di sc l o se i ts e xpe r t an d/o r t r ea tingphy si ci an s

— a viol ation of the d istri ct cou rt’s pretrial ord er. The di st r i ctc o ur t f au l te d the E E OC f o r i ts e l ev en th

ho ura tt empt t o sh i ft th e f ac tu al ba si s o fthe c l ai m . S wi tc hing the d isabil ity from H I V to A I D S w as a “gross d ep artu re fro m w h at [th e E E O C ] alleg ed in t h e in itia l st ag es of th is l aw sui t a nd i t co m es too l ate ,” the c ourthel d. Because H I V a nd AI DS “ ar e no t sy no ny m o us ” f o r p urp o se s o fthe A D A , the j ud ge d isregard ed the affi d avits from Stew art an d he r phy si ci an . Thi s l eft ane vi den ti ar y v o i d; the j u d ge hel d that b ecause the EE OC “a dd uced no ev i dence reg ar di ng th e effec t o f H I V o n an y o f S te war t’ s m aj o r l if e ac tiv itie s,” t h e ag en c y h ad failed to m ak e a th re sh old sh o wi ngtha t S te war t’ s H I V- po si ti ve s ta tu s m et th e st atuto ry d efin itio n o f“ d i s ab ility .” E ve n if th e A ID S c laim w er e pr oper l y b ef or e t h e court, the j ud ge hel d, ther e was no e vi dence thatLog Cabi n knew St ew ar t s uffer ed fro m A ID S. SeeH edbe rg v. Ind. B el l Tel. Co
. , Inc. , 47 F. 3d 928, 93 2 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 5) ( “[ A]nem pl o y erc anno t be l i ab l e unde r the AD A .
. . wh e n i ti n d i s p u t a b l y h a d n o kn o wl e d g e o fthe disabi l i ty. ”)
. Final l y, the j ud ge sai d it w as “questi onabl e” whethe r S te war t was a “ qua l i fi ed i ndi vi dual ” unde r the A D A . Th e c ou rten te re d su m m ar y jud gm en t for L og C ab in a nd the EE OC a pp e a l e d.

I I . Discussi on W e review d e nov o a d istri ct court’s gran t o f s um m ary j u d gm en t, vie w in g th e e vid en c e in th e ligh t m os t fa vo ra b le6 N o. 06

- 3278 to th e n on m ov in g p ar ty
. He al y v. City o f Chi cago , 450 F. 3d 732, 738 ( 7th Cir
. 2006 )
. Sum m ar y j ud gm en t is appr o pr i at e when “the pl ea di ng s, the di scove r y a nd disc l osur e m ate ri al s o n fi l e, and an y a ffi davi ts show that the r e i s no g e nu i ne i s s ue a s t o a ny mat e r i a l f a c t a nd that the m ova nt i s e nti tl ed to j ud gm ent as a m att er of l aw . ” F ED . R. C IV . P. 56 ( c)
. W e m aya ffi r m a j udg m en t o n a ny g r o und supp or ted i n t h e reco rd “s o l ong as that gr ound w as ade qua te l y a d dr es se d i n the di st r i ctc o ur t an d the n on m ov in g p ar ty h ad an op p or tu n ity to co n te st th e is su e.” Card os o v. Ro be r tBos ch Corp. , 427 F.3d 429 , 432 (7th C ir. 2005 ). The A DA prohibi ts em plo ym ent di scr i m i nati on “ aga i nst a qua l i fi ed i ndi vi dualwi tha di sabi l i tyb ec au se o fthe d isab ili t y . ” 42 U
. S. C
. § 12112(a); Furnish v. SVI Sys. , Inc. , 2 7 0 F
. 3 d 4 4 5 , 4 4 8 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 1 )
. T o p re vai l o n a n ADA cl ai m , the pl aint i ffmusts ho w “( 1) he is ‘di sabl ed’ ; ( 2) he i s qual i fi ed t o perf or m the ess enti alfuncti on o fthe j ob ei th erwith o r wi th o utr ea so nabl e ac co m m o dat i o n; a nd ( 3) he su ffer ed an adver se em plo ym ent a cti on be cause of hi s di sabi l i ty. ” Fur ni sh , 2 70 F. 3d at 448. The A DA defi nes “dis abi l i ty” as f ol l ows: The ter m “di sabi l i ty” m eans, with r esp ec t t o an i nd i vi du al

— ( A) a phy si ca l orm en ta l i m pai r m en t th ats ubs ta nti al l y l i m i ts one orm or e ofthe m aj orli fe a cti vi ti es of s u c h ind ivid u al; ( B) a r eco rd o fsuch a n i m pai rm ent; o r ( C) be i ng r ega rded as havi ng such an i m pai rm ent.N o. 06

- 3278 7 42 U .S.C . § 12 10 2(2 ); 29 C .F.R . § 1 63 0.2 (g). T h is c as e im p licate s o nl y the fi rs t o fthes e defi ni ti ons. “[W ]h et h er a p er so n h as a d isa b ility u n d er th e A D A is an indiv i du al i zed i nquir y. ” Sutton v. U nite d A irLine s, Inc. , 527 U
. S. 47 1, 48 3 ( 1999 )
. Thi s i s be cause the s tatute re quir es the di sabi l i ty i ssue to be det er m i ned by r efer ence to “an in divi du al ” a nd wh ethera gi ven physi calo r m en tal i m p airm en t “su bsta nt ial ly li m its ” th e “m aj or l ife acti vi ti es ofsuch i nd i vi du al

. ” Id. ; s e eal s o § 1210 2(2)( A ). M aj orl i fe a cti vi ti es i ncl ud e, b u t a re notl i m i ted to , “functi ons such as car i ng f or[ one’ s s elf] , per f or m i ng m anual tas ks, walk i ng, se ei ng, hear i ng, speak i ng, br eathi ng, learning, and w orking.” 29 C.F. R
. § 1630.2(i ). The EE OC co m pli cate d the i nd i vi du al ized “di sabi l i ty” i nqui r y i n thi s c as e bya tt empti ng, e xt r emel y l at e i n the l i t i g a t i o n, t o r e f a s hi o n i t s c l a i m a s o ne b a s e d o n AI DS r athe r tha n HI V. I n B ragdon v. Abbott, 524 U
. S. 624, 63 3-37 ( 1998 ) , i nvol vi ng an A DA cl ai m ant who w as H I V-posi ti ve bu t had not y e t d evelop ed A I D S, the Su p rem e C ou rt d es c ribed the typi calm edi calpro gr ess i on o fan ini ti al H I V i nfe ction into the A I DS vi rus. The Courthel d that H I V satisfi es th e statu tory d efi nition of a “p hy sical i m p airm en t” and w ent o n to co ncl ud e that the cl ai m ant’ s HIV in fec tio n su b st an tia lly lim ite d on e of h er m ajor life ac tiv iti es

— spe ci fi ca l l y, r epr o duct i o n. Id. at 64 1- 42
. Thi s co nc l usi o n was b as ed o n un co nt r o ve r te d t es ti m o ny f r o m the cl ai m ant “ that her H I V i n fec ti on co ntro l l ed herdeci si on not to have a chi l d.” Id. at 641. He r e , the di s t r i ct cou r tdi s a l l o we d the EE OC’ s a t t e mpt to substi tute A I DS f orH I V as the f actu al basi s o fi ts8 N o. 06

- 3278

The di s t ri c tc our tm i ghtha ve s ee n thi s cas e di ff er en t l y ha d t he 2 E E O C c om p lied w ith the p retria l o rd er an d tim ely d isclosed its m ed ical exp ert, w hich p resu m ab ly w ou ld h av e intro d u ced this ne w in f or m at i on aboutSt ewar t ’ s c ondi t ion m uc h e ar l i eri n the c as e. The di s t ri c tc our tdi d not, ho w eve r, e xpl i c i t l y i nvoke the E E O C ’ s d iscov ery v iola tion as a rea son to d isre g a r d th e p hy sici an’ s affidavit, and neithe r do w e. cl ai m , ho l di ng, b as ed o n B rag do n, that the tw o ar e “ not sy no ny m o us ” f o r pur po se s o fthe A DA
. The j udg e th o ug ht the EEO C’s subst itu tion ofA I DS f orH I V as the o perat i ve disabi l i ty cam e “ too l ate ”

— a m onth be f or e t ri aland i n i ts r es po ns e to Lo gCabi n’s su m m ar y j udg m en t m o ti o n. The j ud ge ther ef or e d isrega rded the affi davi ts subm i tte d by St ew ar t a nd herphysi ci an thatdescr ibed the effect o f AI DS

— no t H I V a l o ne

— on S tewart’ s m aj orl i fe a cti vi ti es. T he EE O C a r gu es on ap p eal that H I V and A I D S are th e sam e d isease w he n a p erson has A I D S, and there fore the di s t r i c t c o ur t a b us e d i t s di s c r e t i o n b y r e fus i ng to co ns i derthe a ffi dav i ts
. W he th erHI V and A I DS a r e sy nonym ous foral l purposes unde r the AD A need notbe dec i ded i n thi s ca se . W e no te o nl y tha t th eya r e no t sy non ym ou s for th e li m ite d p u rp os e rele va n t to t h e d e te rm ina tion at issue h ere

— w he th er to en t e r t ain th e E E O C ’s b ela te d alt er at ion of t h e f a c tu al b as is of it s c laim

— an d th e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s j u d gm en t in t h is re ga rd w as m an ifes tly r ea so nabl e. The v er y first m en ti o n o fAI DS c ame in the E E O C ’s respon se to L og C abin’s m otion for su m m ary j ud gm ent, and the cour t was ent i tl ed to r ega rd thi s a s “to o l ate ” t o change so basi c a f actual prem i se i n the case . 2 See C o nn er v . Ill. D ep’t o f Na tura l R es. , 413 F. 3d 67 5, 67 9 ( 7thN o. 06

- 3278 9 Cir
. 20 05) ( up hol ding dist ri ct j ud ge’ s r efusalto co nsi der a claim r a ised f or the fi rst tim e in a respon se to su m m ary j u d gm en t); G rayson v. O ’N ei ll, 308 F.3d 808, 817 (7th Cir. 20 02 ) ( ho l di ngpl aint i ff“ ‘ m aynot am en d hi s co m pl aint thro ugh ar gum ents i n hi s bri ef i n opposi ti on to a m oti on forsum m ar y j ud gm ent’ ” ( quoti ng S h a n a h a n v . Ci ty of Chic ago , 82 F. 3d 776, 781 (7th Cir. 1996))). F ede r alpl ea di ng r ul es r equi r e th e pl aint i ff to “ ‘ g i ve the def en d an t f ai r no ti ce o fwhatthe

. . . c l ai m i s an d the gr o u n d s u p on w h ich it res ts .’ ” Be l l At l ant i c Corp
. v. Tw om bly, 12 7 S
. Ct. 19 55, 19 64 ( 2007 ) ( qu ot i ng Conl ey v . Gib s on , 35 5 U .S. 41 , 47 (1 95 7)); Kil l i ngs worth v
. H SBC B ank Nev. , N. A. , 507 F.3d 614 , 618 (7th C ir. 2007). T he EE O C ’s com pla i nt ga ve noti ce that i ts A DA cl ai m was gr ounded o n di scri m i na ti o n a g ains t S te war t be ca us e sh e was HI Vp o s itiv e, not be ca us e sh e ha d AI DS
. Thi s was no t a m ere a dj us t men ti n the l e g a l the o r y o fthe c a s e , a s the EE OC c o nt e nd s ; i t wa s a maj o r a l t e r a t i o n o f “ wha t the cl ai m i s” an d th e “ gr ou n d s u p on w h ich it res ts .” I n Brag don , the Suprem e Court described the typ i cal p rogression of an H I V infect ion; its i nitial stage , the C ou rt not ed , usu all y l asts a bou t three m ont hs and i s ch aract eri zed by “M ononucl eos i s- l i ke sym ptom s” that “em er ge between si x days and six w eek s a fteri nfe cti on” and “abat e w i th in 1 4 t o 21 days. ” 5 24 U
. S. at63 5. The i nfe cti on the n “ e nt e r s wh a tis re f e r r e d t o s o met i mes a s i t s a s y mptom ati c phase, ” a l though the Courts aid “[t ] he te rm i s a m i s no mer, i n s o me r e s pe c t s , f o r c l i ni c a l fe a t ur e s p e rs i st thro ughout, i ncl ud i ng l ym phad enopathy, derm ato l ogi cal diso rder s, o ra l l esi ons, and bact er ial i nfe cti ons. ” Id. The10 N o. 06

- 3278

Our di s se nt i ng c ol l e a gu e n ot e s tha t“ pe r s on s wi th AI DS do 3 notc ea s e t o be H IV p osit i ve; on c e s om eo ne i s HIV pos i t i ve or is i nf ect ed w ith H IV , s he i s alway s H IV posit iv e.” D is se nt, at p. 17. This is tr ue bu t besi de the point. N o one is suggest ing that Ste w artce ase d b ei ng H IV

- posit ive once she dev el oped AID S. R ath er, ou r op inio n h old s on ly t ha t be cau se ( as Br agd o n d isc us s es ) the physi c al e ff ec t s ofAIDS ar e di ff er en t

— m ore se vere

— thanthos e as s oc i at ed wi th be ing H I V

- pos i t i ve, the d istrict cou rt w as w ithin its d iscretion to r eject the E E O C ’ s late at t em ptto su b sti t ut e AIDS f or HIV as the f ac t ual bas i s f or S t e wa r t ’ s AD A c l a i m. T h e d i s s e n ta l s o no t e s th a t“ h a v i n g AI DS is not i nconsi st ent w ith being H IV posit ive. ” Id
. This i s als o tr ue, b u t be ing H IV -po sitive is n ot the sam e as ha vi ng AI DS, as the Supr em e Cour tdi s c u sses a tl en gth i n B ra g d on . And t hat ’ s the (co n tin u ed ...) Court note d that “ i n m os t instance s, thi s s tag e l ast s f r o m 7 to 11 ye ar s” be for e d ev elo p in g in to A ID S. Id. The AD A ’s ap p li cab il ity d ep en d s u p on w he th er t he cl ai m an t’ s as se r te d i m pai r m en t i s a “di sabi l i ty ” wi th i n the m eani ng o fthe sta tute; thi s, i n turn, depend s upon w hetherthe ass er ted i m pai rm ent “ su b stanti al l y l i m i ts one orm or e o fthe m ajor li fe a cti vi ti es” o fthe cl ai m ant. Give n the s y mpt o mat i c v a r i a nc e s i n the di ffe r e nts t a g es of t h is d ise as e, w h et h er an A D A c laim an t w as H IV -p os iti ve orhad full

-bl own A I DS at the t i m e o fthe al l ege d disc ri m i nati on i s hi gh ly re l evantto thi s f oundati onal as pec t o fthe c l ai m . The EEOC ha s no t ex pl aine d why it w ait ed u n til its res p on se to su m m ar y jud gm e n t, a mon th bef o r e t r i a l, t o di s c l o s e tha tS t e wa r th a d AI DS and that thi s w as the a ctualbas i s f orthe disc ri m i nati on a l l e g e d in the cas e. See C o nn er, 413 F.3d at67 9 (W h ile 3N o. 06

- 3278 11

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 3 m ater ial point as to noti ce here. Log Cab in and the d is tr ic t court did no t know untila m onth bef ore t ri al thatSt ew arthad A ID S an d th at the E E O C w as actu ally b asin g Stew art’s d isab ility cl a im o n h er A ID S sy m p to m s. T h e d iss en t a lso as se rt s th a t “ [i]t is un d ispu ted tha t at all relev an t tim es, Stew art w as no t on ly H I V pos i t i ve . . . buts he al s o had A I DS. So the al l eg at i on i n the c om pl ai nttha tSt ewar twas ‘ H I V pos i t i ve’ i s c ons i s t en twith the f ac tthats he ha s AIDS. ” Di s s ent, atp. 18
. No, i t ’ s no t, butthe op p osite is true
. T h a t i s, an alleg atio n th at Stew art h as A ID S is c ons i s t en twith a n a l l eg at i on that s he was H I V

- pos i t i ve, butno t vice versa. Ifa pers on has AID S s he i s neces sar il y H IV

- posit ive; bu t a p e r s o n wh o i s HI V- p o s i t i v e d o e s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y h a ve AIDS. I ti s undi s put ed thatatthe tim e Stewar tappl i ed for the j ob and thr oug hout thi s li ti gati on, Log Cab in knew that S te w a rt w a s H IV -p o sit iv e, nottha t she h ad A ID S. Th at it is now known an d undis put ed thats he ac t ual l y ha s AIDS does no t excu se the E E O C ’ s la t e in tro d u ction of that in form atio n in to thi s l i t i gat i on. p lea d in g is n ota “ ‘ga m e o f sk ill,’ ” itn e v e r t h ele ss is “v i ta l l y i m po r ta ntt o i nf o r m the o ppo singpa r ty ofthe gr ounds up on w hi ch a cl ai m r est s; a com pla i nt i s a dequ ate onl y i fi t ‘ f ai rl y noti fi es a d efendant of m att er s s ought to be l i ti gat ed. ’ ” ( quoti ng Sun ds t r and Corp
. v. St anda r d Kol l s m an Ind us., Inc., 488 F.2d 807, 811 (7th Cir. 1973))). I t doe s no go od f orthe EE OC to sugg est, al ter nati vel y, t ha tth e d i s t r i c tc o u r ts h o u l d h a v e p e r mi t t e d a n a men dm ent to the com pla i nt u nd erR ule 15( b) o fthe Fed eral R ules o f C ivi l P roc edu re. Rule 15(b) co ncer n s am en dm ents that may b e pe r mi t t e d i n o r de r t o c o nfo r m the pl e a dings to th e ev i den ce s ubmi tt ed att r i al, whi chi s not a t i ss ue12 N o. 06

- 3278

I t i s u n c l e a r w h y th e E E O C d i d n o tp l e a d A I D S i n i t s c o m- 4 pl ai ntor r efer en c e i ti n the p arties’ Rul e 26 ( f ) r epo rt, al though the m os tl ogi c al e xpl ana t i on i s thatthe re i s no e vi denc e Log Cabi n was awar e St ewar tha d AIDS. Tha tLog Cab i n di d not k n o w S t e w a r th a d A I D S i s a n a l t e r n a t i v e b a s i s t o a f fi r m, assu m ing the E E O C ’ s late attem p t to reco nst i t u te the cla im s houl d have b ee n a l l owed. The di s s en tf aul t s thi s c onc l us i on, no ting tha t “w e ha v e ne v er h eld tha t an em p loy er w ho acts i m pro per l y onthe bas i s ofa di s abi l i t y ne ed k now the e xt en t to w hich the disab ility ha s pr og ressed to b e he ld liab le.” D issent, a tp . 2 2
. O u r o p i n i o n d o e s n o ts u g g e s tth a tth i s i s r e q u i r e d

. We h o l d o n l y th a tth e E EO C ’ s b e l at e d a t t e mptt o s u b s t i t u t e AI DS for H IV a s the b asis f or this A D A claim cam e too late. Th is is bec aus e the thr es hol d “di s abi l i t y” det er m i nat i on t ur ne d on the ex te n t to w h i c h S te w a rt ’s im p a ir m en t li m ite d h er m ajo r li fe ac t i vi t i es , and an AIDS s uff er er ’ s s ym pt om s ( and the i r eff ec ton he r m aj or lif e acti vi t i es ) di ff erfro m thos e ofs om eo ne who is H IV

- posit ive but has not yetdev el oped AID S. he r e. I n a ny e ve nt, the EEOC ne ve r s o ug htl ea ve t o a m en d i ts com pla i nt. 4 A ccor dingly, the dist ri ct c ourtdi d not abuse i ts disc re tion in disregard ing the affidav its subm itted by Stew art an d he r ph y s i c i a n de s c r ib i ng the e ffe c t o f AI DS o n her l i fe ac ti vities. Thi s m ea ntthe r ec o r d was s i l en t ab o ut th e effec t o fHI V o n S te war t’s li fe ac ti vi ti es , l ea di ng necess ar i l y t o the c ourt ’ s concl usi on that the EEO C had not m ade a thre shol d evi denti ar y s how i ng o f a cove re d disabi l i ty w i thi n the m eani ng o fthe A D A . T he ag ency argu es th is w as error un d er Brag don b ec au se a rea so n ab le j urorco uld co ncl ud e that S tewart’ s HIV i nfe cti on im p os ed su b st an tia l lim ita tio n s o n h er rep ro d u c tio n, aN o. 06

- 3278 13

In her affidavit St ew arts tat es s he w as m arr ied i n J anuary 5 2005, b ecam e p regnant in A ugu st2005, and o n M arch 22, 2006, gave bi rt h to a baby bo y who ha s t es t ed n eg at i ve f or HIV. The affi d av it d escrib es the p reca u tion s she u nd erto ok an d d ifficu lt i es she e nc ount er ed dur i ng pr eg nan c y be c aus e ofhe r AIDS, an d st eps s he and her husband ( w h o a lso has AID S) have taken since the b irth of the ir ch ild to a v oid fu tu re p reg na nc ies. B eca u se the d istrict c o u r t w as w ithin its d iscretion to d isreg ard this affi d av it

— and the on e s ubm i t t ed by St ewar t ’ s doct or

— this ev id en ce l i es out s i de the r ec or d. ( W e al s o n ot e aga i n thatthe tim e p e r i o d cov ered b y this section of Stew art’s affi d av it p ostd ates th e tim e p erio d at issue i n th is case.) N ecessar ily the n, the E E O C is ask ing for a per se ru le tha t H IV is a d isab ility underthe AD A bec aus e ofi t s e ff ec t s onr epr oduc t i on. m aj or l if e a c tivity. Th is i s a m isread ing of Brag don , w hi ch wa s b a s e d o n th e “ u n c h a l l e n g e d ” t e s t i mo n y o fth e ADA cl ai m ant in that cas e that “ her H I V i nfe cti on co ntro l l ed her deci si on notto have a chi l d.” Brag don , 524 U
. S. at64 1. T h e S u p r e me C o u r te mp h a s i z e d th a tb e c a u s e th e c l a i man t’ s te st i m o ny was unc o nt r o ve r te d i n thi s r eg ar d, the Co ur t“ ne e d n o ta ddr e s s the s e c o nd que s t i o n pr ese nted, i.e., w hetherH I V i nfe cti on i s a per se di sabi l i tyunde r the A DA
. ” Id. at 64 2. T h e E E O C ’s arg u m en t h e r e e s se n tia lly ask s us to hol d that HIV i s a p erse di sabi l i ty und er th e AD A be ca us e o fi ts e ffec t o n r epr o duct i o n. I n l i g ht 5 o fthe qua l i fy i ngl ang ua g e i n Brag don and the C ou rt’s hol di ngi n Sut t on tha t the qu e s t i o n o f di s a b i l i t y under the AD A “i s a n i nd i vi du al i zed i nquir y, ” 5 27 U .S
. at48 3, w e decl i ne to adopt s uch a r ule

. This brings us to the quest i on wh etherS tewa rt w as a “q u alifie d in d ivid u al” u n d er th e A D A
. Se eWe i l e rv.14 N o. 06

- 3278 H ous e hol d F i n. Corp. , 10 1 F
. 3d 519, 52 4 ( 7th Ci r. 19 96) ( sta ti ng pl ai nti ffbea rs bu rden ofpro ofo n thi s poi nt)
. Log Cabi n ar gues sh e w as n ot, and thi s i s a n additi onalo r a l t e r na t i v e ba s i s upo n whi c h t o affi r m. A qua l i fi e d ind i v i dual i s “ an i nd i vi du al w ith a di sabi l i ty w ho, with o r wi th o utr ea so nabl e ac co m m o dat i o n, c anpe r f o r m the ess enti alfuncti ons ofthe em plo ym ent pos i ti on that s uch i ndi vi dualho l ds o r de si r es . ” 42 U. S
. C. § 1 21 11 ( 8)
. The in d ivid u al m u st als o “ sa tis f[y] t h e req u isit e s kill, ex p er ience, educati on a nd o th er j ob- re l ate d requi re m ents of th e em p loym en t po siti on.” 29 C
. F.R. § 1630
. 2(m ). Log Cabi n re quir ed i ts w ai t- sta ffem plo yee s t o l i ft, t r a ns po r t, a nd c a r r y o b j e c t s we i g hing f r o m 2 5 t o 3 0 p o un ds up to 20 o r mo r e t i mes p e r s hi ft, a nd S t e wa r ti nd i c a ted on herj ob appli cati on that s he co uld notl i ft m or e than 10 po unds

. The EEOC c l ai m s Lo gCabi n’ s he av y - l i fting r equi r ementi s pr etextu al, a nd a s pr o o fpo i nt s to o ne w ai tr ess atthe re sta urant w ho co uld notm ee t th e r eq uir em ent. The ag ency ove rs tat es thi s wai tr ess ’ s l i m i tati ons ; she couldha ndl e th e l i ftingr equi r ed bythe j o b, s he sim p ly c ou ld n otlift o v e r h er h ea d . L og C ab in w as ab le to a cc o m m o dat e he r “ no o ve r he ad l i fting ” l i m i ta ti o n. S t ew ar t, o n the o the r h a nd , a ns we r e d “ no ” t o the a pp licat i on quest i on wh etheracc om m odati ons coul d be m ad e t o ov er c om e h er liftin g re st ric tio n . Se eD e Pao l iv. A bbo tt La bs. , 14 0 F
. 3d 66 8, 6 74 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 8) ( ho l di ng pl aint i ff“ f ac es a n i ns ur m o unt able pr o bl em” b ec au se s he propos ed no a ccom m od ati on that would per m i t herto perf or m the pr od ucti on- w or kerj ob)

. The f actualdi spute ove r w hetherthe l i fti ng r est ri cti on was te m pora ryo rN o. 06

- 3278 15

T he d issent offers an exp lan atio n for S tew art’s “n o” an sw er to 6 the ac c om m odat i on que s t i on on the j ob appl i c at i on, s ugge s t i ng tha t“ i f[ S t e war t ] be l i e ve d the [ l i fti ng] re s t r i c t i onwou l d n otbe an i s s ue by the tim e s he be ganthe pos i t i on, the re woul d be no re a so n for th e L o g C a b in to h a v e t o ‘acc o m m o d a te ’ he r.” Dis s en t, atp. 23
. Butane m pl oye r i s e nt i t l ed t o t ake at f ac e val ue a j ob ap plic a n t’ s “no” answ er t o a quest ion about w hether a d i sa b i l i t y c a n b e a c c o m m o d a t e d . S t a t e d d i ffe r e n t l y , S t e w a r t ’s s ubj ec t i ve re as ons f or an s weri ng “ no” t o the ac c om m odat i on que s t i on c ann otbe i m put ed t o Log Cabi n. p erm an en t w as th us i m m a terial. A ccord ingly, Stew art 6 w as not a qual i fi ed i nd i vi du alunder the A DA , a nd f or thi s a dd i ti onalr eas on , sum m ar y j ud gm ent in f avo r of Log Cabi n w as appropri ate
. A FFI RMED .

W I L L I A MS, Ci r c u i tJu dge, d iss en tin g. B ec au se I w ou ld r ev er se the di stri ctc o ur t’ s g r an t o fs um m ar y j udg m en t to L o g C ab in, Ires p ec tfu lly d iss en t. T h e E E O C alleg ed in i ts com p laint that Log Cabi n vi ol ate d the AD A wh en i t r efus ed to hi r e S te war t upo n l ea r ni ng“ th ats he w as H I V posi ti ve,” a nd then subm i tte d evi dence r eg ar di ngthe e ffec t th atHI V ( whi chha d pr o g r es se d t o the A I DS st age ) had on S tewart’ s l i fe a cti vi ti es. T he di str i ct16 N o. 06

- 3278

co ur t st r ucktha t ev i den ce o n th e b as i s o fi ts j udg m en t that a di sabi l i ty cl ai m bas ed on A I DS is a “ gr oss departur e” fro m a c laim ba se d on “ b ein g H IV p os itiv e.” N oton ly does thi s di sti ncti on i m proper l y focus on the nam e o f Stew art’s disab il ity r ath er than i ts effects on h er l ife activitie s, but i t a l so i s e rr oneo us and ther ef or e unre aso n ab le. A p er so n d iag n os e d w ith A ID S is a lso H IV posi ti ve. The m aj or i ty uph ol ds the d i str i ct c ourt ’ s j ud gm en t as mani fes tly r ea so nabl e be ca us e i t vi ews the EE OC as havi n g b el ate dlyr ef ashi oned i ts cl ai m fro m o n e i n v o l v i n g H I V to o n e i n v o l v i n gAI DS
. I n my v i e w, ho wev er, the EEO C d id no t ch an g e i ts c l ai m , a nd the ev id en c e s u b m it t e d to d em on st ra te th at Ste w ar t is d isa b led sh ou ld n oth av e b ee n d isr eg ar d ed onth e b as is ofa dist i ncti on that has no m eani ng i n thi s ca se. Once a per son i s i nfe cted with H I V ( ori s “ H I V posi ti ve”) th at p er so n rem ain s H IV p os itiv e u n t il his d ea th . “H IV in fec tio n ” (w h ich is oft en sh or te n ed to “ H IV ” or “ H IV dise ase ”) r efer s t o a s i ngl e di sea se that i s charact er i zed by the pr ogr ess i ve l oss o fCD 4+ lym phocyte s ( orwh i te bl o o d c el l s)
. The Sup r eme Co ur t ha s des cr ibe d the dise ase as h avi ng thr ee sta ges

— acu te, ch ronic, an d A I D S. S e eg e n e r al l y Br ag do n v . Ab b ott, 524 U
. S. 62 4, 63 3- 37 ( 1998 ) ( describi ng the pro gr ess i on o fH I V i nfe ction). The Center f orD i sea se Contro l n ow re cogni zes fi ve, ratherthan thre e, st ag es of H IV infe c tio n . See C en te r for D ise as e C on tr ol, L i v i n g Wi t h HI V

/A IDS , http: //w w w . cdc. gov/hi v/ re sour ces/ bro chures/l i vi ngw i thhi v. htm #q2 ( l astvi si ted A ug ust 3 1, 2008 ). A I DS i s the fi nal st age o fH I V, but ther e i s no singl e t est to d iag n o s e A ID S. Id. Usua l l y AI DS i s di agno se d whenaN o. 06

- 3278 17 perso n’s CD 4+ cel l co unt d ro ps bel ow 200, but som eti mes pe r s o ns wi th hi g he r c e l l c o un t s a r e di a g no s e d wit h A ID S if th ey h av e c er ta in d ise as es su c h as tu b er c u los is or p ne um ocyst is carinii p ne um onia (PC P). Se ei d. ; Brag don , 52 4 U .S. at 6 33 -36 ; D oe v. U ni ve rs i ty of M aryl and M e di ca l Sys t e m Corp. , 5 0 F
. 3 d 1 2 6 1 , 1 2 6 2 n . 3 ( 4 th Ci r . 1 9 9 5 ) ( “ AI DS i s the end- sta ge ofH I V in fecti on a nd i s char acte ri zed by the pr ese nce o fH IV a nd o ne o r m or e ‘ opportunis ti c’ i nfe cti ons”). I n other w or ds, an AIDS diagnosi s ca n m ean differ ent s ym ptom s f ordi ffer ent peo ple , and i t doe s no t ne ce ssarilyr epr es en t a ch an g e i n de bi l i ta ti o n fr o m the ear l i erst age s o fH I V. Rather, i nd i vi du al s s ufferfro m the e ffects o fH I V/A I DS at var i ous s tag es i n differ ent ways. H I V and AIDS ar e not separ ate dise ase s. Im p or tantl y, perso ns with AI DS do n ot cea se to be HIV pos i ti ve; o nce so m eo ne i s H I V po si ti ve o r i s i nfec te d wi thHI V, s he i s alw ays H I V po si ti ve . Nordo pe r so ns wi thAI DS no l o ng ers ufferfr o m HI V i nfec ti o n. The r efo r e, having A I DS i s no t i nc o ns i st en t wi thb eing H I V po si ti ve , no r i s i t a ne w “c au se of a ct i o n” unde r the A DA
. B y the t i m e S tewart appli ed f ora posi ti on a s a w ai tr ess atLog Cabi n, she w as both H I V posi ti ve and had AI DS
. Tho ugh she di d no t r ev ea l thi s to Lo gCabi n a t th e ti m e sh e appl i ed f o r the j o b, a mana g era t th e r es ta ur an t disc ove re d she was i nfe cted with H I V and w ro te “H I V +” in l ar g e c a p ital letters across h er ap p li cation
. Stew art was no t hi r ed. Pur su an t to the fede r alno ti ce pl ea di ng sta nd ar d, the EEO C’s com pla i nt, wh i ch m er el y ini ti ate d th i s l i ti gat i on, pro vi ded a shor t a nd pl ai n sta tem ent o f th e grievan ce: Log C abin refus ed to hire Stew art18 N o. 06

- 3278 “beca use i t l ear ned she w as H I V posi ti ve. ” An y f acts consi ste nt with the c om pla i nt’ s a l l ega ti ons coul d be prove d l ate r an d d i d not r equi re an a m ended com pla i nt. S e e S wi e rki e wi cz v. S ore ma N. A. , 5 34 U
. S. 506, 512-14 (2002 ); D oe v. Sm ith , 429 F.3d 706 , 708 (7th C ir. 2006). T o m ee t it s t h r e s h o ld bu rd en of p ro vin g t h at Ste w ar t is disabl ed as defined by the A DA , the EE OC subm i tte d evi dence thatS tewart’ s co nd i ti on ( w hi ch the affi davi ts re ferto as “AIDS” or“HIV/A I DS ”) su bsta nti al l y l i m i ts one or m ore of he r m aj or l ife acti v it ie s . T he district cou rt ac k no wl edg ed th atS t e wa r t ’ s d i s e a s e ( AI DS ) c a u s e d s er i o us l i m itat i o ns o n a numbe r o fmaj o r l i fe ac ti vi ti es , i nc l udi ng se lf-ca re , eat in g, an d rep ro d u c t i o n . B u t, in ex p lica b ly, it h e l d th a t th i s e v i d e n c e o n l y p e r t a i n e d t o th e “ AI D S c l a i m” an d c o ul d no t be co ns i der ed to war ds th e “HI V c l ai m , ” an d th erefore that th ere w as no ev iden ce th at Stew art’s H I V substa nti al l y i m pai re d any m aj orl i fe a cti vi ty. T h is, to m e, is illogic al. It is u n d isp u te d th at atall r el ev an t ti m es , S te war t was no t o nl y HI V po si ti ve ( m eanin g s h e h ad H IV

— th e virus), bu t sh e a ls o h ad A I D S. So th e a l l e g at ion in t h e c om p lain t t h at Ste w ar t w as “H IV p os itiv e” is co n sis te n t w ith th e fa c t t h at sh e h a s A ID S. It f ol l ows th at the e vi dence r ega rdi ng the i m pact that “H I V/A I DS” o r A I DS has on S tewart’ s life a cti vi ti es d es c rib es th e im p ac t t h at H IV h as on Ste w ar t’s life ac tiv iti es . Al th ou g h the di st r i ctc o ur t appe ar s to ha ve tho ug ht it n ec es sa ry for St ew ar t t o s u b m it e vid en c e o f h ow H IV “al one” a ffects herl i fe in or der t o provi de evi dence c o n s i s t e n twi th h e r c o mpl a i n t, th a ti s i mpo s s ib l e i n S t e wart’s case. T h e e ff ects of A I D S on he r l ife activities areN o. 06

- 3278 19 not seve rabl e fro m the effects of H I V. Put ano therway, proo fthatS tewart’ s m aj orl i fe a cti vi ti es ar e affec ted by A I D S i s not d ifferent from proof tha t her m aj or l ife ac ti vi ti es a r e affec te d b y HI V. I nd eed, wh etheron e c all s S tewart’ s di sea se “H I V” or “AI DS ” o r “HI V/AI DS ” m i ss es the pointofthe A DA
. “ The deter m i nati on o fwh etheran in d i vi du alhas a di sabi l i ty i s no t ne ce ss ar i l y b as ed o n the na m e o r di agno si s o fthe i m pai rm ent the perso n has, but ra ther on the e ffect ofthat i m pai rm ent o n th e li fe o fthe i nd i vi du al

. ” 2 9 C. F. R. pt. 16 30 , ap p ., § 1 63 0.2 (j ); see Brag don , 524 U.S
. at63 7 (holdin g tha t the “H I V i nfect ion satisfi es th e statu tory an d r egul at o r y de fi ni ti o n o f a phy si ca l i m pai r m en t dur i ng eve ry sta ge of the dise ase ” but l eaving i t to cour ts to m ake a d isabil ity dete rm ination ba sed on ind iv id ua l circ u m st an c es ); s e eal s o 29 C.F
. R. pt. 16 30, app. ( note di sc us s i ng § 1 6 3 0
. 2 (j ) ) ( “ HI V i nfe c t i o n [ i s ] i nh e r e nt l y s ubsta nti al l y l i m i ti ng. ”)
. W hat m att er s in anal yzi ng wh ether a n i nd i v i du a l h a s a “ di s a b i l i t y ” f o r p ur po s e s o fthe ADA i s th e i m pac t o ftha t co ndi ti o n. Su t t o n v . U nited A irlines, Inc. , 52 7 U .S. 47 1, 48 3 (1 99 9); A lbertson ’s, In c. v. K irk ing burg, 527 U
. S. 555, 566 (1999 ). Bec au se the EEOC pr es en te d e vi den ce de m o nst r at i ng that St ew ar t’ s di sea se

— re gar dle ss o fwh etherherdi sea se is call ed “H I V , ” “H I V /A I D S” or “A I D S”

— su b st an tia lly l i m i ts one or m or e o fS tewart’ s m aj orl i fe a cti vi ti es, i t m et i ts burden ofdem onst ra ti ng tha t S tewart i s “ disabl ed” f or p u rp os es of th e A D A . Th e n a m e s o ft h e s ta ge s o f th is part i c ul a r di s e a s e ( HI V) a r e i nc o ns e qu e nt i a l ; wh at m at te r s i s th e i m pac t o fthe di se as e o n th e i ndi vi dual

. The20 N o. 06

- 3278 dist ri ct c ourter re d i n re fusi ng to co nsi der that e vid ence onthe b a s i s tha tdi ffe r e ntn a mes we r e u s e d t o descr i be St ew ar t’ s di sabi l i ty. Des pi te thi s ev i den ce , the m aj o r i tyo pi ni o n a ffi r m s th e g r an t o fs um m ar y j udg m en t to Lo gCabi n o n the r at i o na l e th atthe di st r i ctc o ur t’ s det er m i na ti o n that th e E E O C w a s b ela te d ly a lte rin g t h e fa c tu al b as is of it s c laim was “ m an i fes tly r ea so na bl e. ” ButIdo no t se e ho w the E E O C w as try in g t o “ alt er ” it s c laim

— that St ew ar t was disc ri m i nated ag ainst because she w as H I V posi ti ve

—by subm i tting ev i dence o fhow Ste w ar t’ s HIV/A I DS substa nti al l y l i m i ts her m aj orl i fe a cti vi ti es. A s a n i ni ti alm att er, the evi dence thatthe EE OC subm i tte d t o pr o ve S te war t i s “di sabl ed” f o r pur po se s o fthe A DA i s co nsi ste nt with h er co m pla i nt, so the EE OC was not changi ng i ts cl ai m . To the exten t th er e is a differ ence b e t we e n HI V a nd AI DS ( no t a l l pe o pl e wi th H I V have A I DS), the m aj or i ty’ s f ocus on nom encl atur e o ver l oo ks w hetherthatdi fference i s co nsequenti ali n thi s ca se. Even i fallp eopl e w i th H I V do not have A I DS, i t i s undis

pu ted th at S tew ar t has bo th. I n l i ght o fthat, r el i ance o n th e d iffer en c e b et w ee n H IV a n d A ID S to d isr eg ar d ev id en ce regard ing t h e e ffect th at H I V has on Stew art’s l ife i s unre aso nabl e. F ur th er m o r e, thi s i s ha r dl y a s i tuat i o n whe r e th e pl ainti ffattem pte d t o r ec o nfi g ur e i ts c l ai m , o r wher e th e co m pl aintf ai led to g i ve the de fen dan t f ai r no ti ce o fthe pl aint i ff’ s cl ai m . The EEO C di d no t al l eg e i n i ts c o m pl aint that Stew ar t was fi re d because she had a co l d and then p ro vid e e vid en c e t h at sh e h ad ca n c er . Th at, to m e, w ou ldN o. 06

- 3278 21

To the e xt en tthatt i m i ng i s ani s s ue, i tb ear s n otin g thatthe 1 EE O C’ s sum m ary j ud gm ent res pon se ( w ith the affidavits ) w as s ubm i t t ed a m onth bef or e t ri al due t o a m i stak e b y L o g C a b in , who f ai l e d t o p r o p e r l y s e r v e th e E EO C wi th i t s mo t i o n f or su m m a r y ju d g m e n tu n t i l A p r i l 2 1 , 2 0 0 6 (w e l l p a st th e c o u r t ’s dea dl i ne f or f i l i ng di s pos i t i ve m ot i ons ) atwhi c h poi ntthe dist ri ctcourt w as f orced to r evis e i ts ent ir e bri efing s chedule. be m o r e si m i l ar to th e ca se s ci te d by th e m aj o r i ty f or the p ro posi ti on that a co urt need not enter tai n bel ate d f a c tu al a lte ra tio n s. See C o nn er v. Ill. D ep’t o f Na tura l R es. , 413 F. 3d 675, 67 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05) ( al l eging di sp ar at e t re atm en t based on th e fai lure to receive pa y for ex tra w o rk i s di ffer en t f r o m a l l eg ing di sc r i m i na ti o n b as ed o n the den i alo fa pr o m o ti o n o r a ho st i l e w or ke nv i r o nm en t c laim ); G rayson v. O ’Nei ll, 308 F
. 3d 808, 817-18 (7th Cir. 2 0 0 2 ) ( a r e t a l i a t i o n c l a i m b a s e d o n a n E E O C c o mpl a i nt fi l ed on one date i s di sti nct fro m a re tal i ati on cl ai m bas ed on an oth er EE O C com p lai nt fil ed tw o m ont hs l ater). Ra th er , A I DS i s o ne st age o fH I V ( si m i l arto wh at “st age f our cancer ” m i ght b e to “cance r” ) , and H I V i s a di sea se th atc anr en ders o m eo ne “ di sabl ed” a t al l s ta g es o fthe di se as e. AI DS i s no t a “s ubs ti tu te ” di se as e f o r HI V. 1 T h e maj o r i t y r e l i e s o n B ragdon t o c o nt en d tha t th e phy si ca l effec ts ofAI DS a r e di ffer en t

— m ore severe

— than thos e “ ass oci ate d w i th” be i ng H I V posi ti ve. But Brag don d oe s n otch ar ac te riz e A ID S a s d ist in c t fro m be in g H IV p os itiv e. Se e, e . g. , Br agdon , 5 24 U. S
. a t 63 6 ( “Dur i ng[ th e A I DS] sta ge, the cl i ni calco n dit i ons m o st often asso cia ted w ith HIV

, such a s pneum ocy sti s ca rni ni i pneum oni a, K aposi ’ s s ar c om a, and non- H odgki ns l ym phom a, te nd to22 N o. 06

- 3278 ap p ear.”) (em p ha sis add ed ). Rat he r, the Su p rem e C ou rt d es c rib ed th e cou rs e of illn es s for a p er so n w h o is H IV posi ti ve as havi ng thr ee sta ges

— ac ut e H I V, c hr o ni c H I V, an d A I D S. T h e m ajorit y also c on c lu d es th at b ec au se L og C ab in d id not know Ste w ar t had A I DS, she coul d not have rel i ed on evid en ce regard ing the i m p a c t of A I D S on he r l ife ac ti vi ti es eveni fthe di st r i ctc o ur t ha d c o ns i der ed i t. But w e hav e nev erhel d that a n em plo ye r w h o acts i m pr o per l y o n the bas i s o fa di sabi l i tyne ed k no w the ex te n t t o w h ich th e d isa b ility h a s p ro gr es se d to be h eld l i abl e. Se eSa ng la p v. La Sal l eBank, FSB , 34 5 F
. 3d 515, 520 ( 7th Ci r. 20 03) ( “[ L]i abi l i ty f ordi sabi l i ty disc ri m i nati on do es no t r equi r e pr o fes si o na l unde r st an di ngo fthe pl ainti ff’ s co ndi ti o n. . . . I t i s en o ug h to s ho w tha t th e defen dan t kn ew ofsy m p tom s raisi ng an inferen ce th at th e plaintiff w as d isa b led .”); cf. Hedbe rg v. Ind. B el l Tel. Co
. , Inc. , 47 F
. 3 d 9 2 8 , 9 3 2 ( 7 th Ci r . 1 9 9 5 ) ( a n e mpl o y e r who has no k no w ledg e of a disa bility w ha tsoev er cannot b e found to ha ve bee n m otivated by tha t d isabil ity). This i s not a case wh er e LogCabi n had no know l edge o f S t e wa r t ’ s di s a b i l i t y . I t i s un di s pu t e d Lo g Cab i n knew she w as H I V posi ti ve. A nd ther e i s e vi dence l i nki ng Log Cabi n’s kno w l edge o fS tewart’ s d i sabi l i ty to i ts advers e acti on (Log Cabi n prom i nentl y wrot e “ H I V+” o n her em plo ym ent app l i cati on) , wh i ch dis ti ngui shes thi s ca se from th e rule of He db e rg. He db e rg does not sta nd f or the pr oposi tion that an em plo yerwh o knows ofa disa

bi l i ty m ust p ro perl y di agno se that disabi l i ty bef or e i t ca n be he l d l i abl e f oract i ng o n the basi s o fit
. S o Ido notse eN o. 06

- 3278 23

w h y t h e E E O C w ou ld n ee d to d em on st ra te th at L og C ab in knew her HIV i nfe cti on had pro gr ess ed to i ts fi nal st age in or d er to h old L og C ab in liab le for ac tin g on th at kn ow ledge. I nd eed, Log Cabi n m ai ntai ns thati ts re aso ns f ornot hi ri ng S tewart had nothi ng to do with herdi sabi l i ty. Th i s b r i ng s me t o wh e the r the EE OC de mon s t ra ted th at Ste w ar t w as qu alifie d for th e p os i t ion . L og C ab in ass er ts on a pp ealthati t i s a n abso l ute r equi re m ent for w ai tr ess es to be abl e t o l i ft 2 5- 30 pound s. H ow eve r, that as se r ti o n i s unde r m i ne d b y Lo gCabi n’ s o wner, who when as k ed ata de po si ti o n whe th erha vi ng a l i fting re str i cti on “ el i m i nates ” som eone fr om bei ng em plo yed as a w ait re ss atth e re st au ra n t, re sp on d ed “n otn ec es sa rily.” The r efo r e, the r e i s a m at erial d is put e as t o whethe r the l i ftingr equi r ementi s an a bso l ut e r equi r emento fthe wa i t r e s s j o b f o r wh i c h S t e wa r ta pp l i e d. Eve n a ss um i ng the l i fti ng r equi re m ent i s a n abso l ute one, ther e i s a m ate ri aldi spute as to wh etherS tewart w as not quali fi ed si nce herl i fti ng r est ri cti on was onl y t em porary. T hou gh she n oted on he r app li cation that there w a s n o wa y Lo gCab i n c o ul d a c c o mm o da t e h e r i nab i l i ty to lift m or e t h an t en p ou n d s, sh e a lso co n te m p or an eo u sly tol d Log Cabi n tha t h er inabi l i ty to do so was tem pora ry . I nd e e d, tha two ul d e xp l a i n whyshe wr o t e o n he r a ppli cati on that there was no a ccom m odation f orherr estr i cti on. I fs h e be l i eve d the r est ri cti on would notbe an i ssue by the t i m e sh e b ega n the posi ti on, ther e would be no r eas on f orthe L og C abi n to have to “a ccom m odate” he r. T he refore, a reason able j ury could fi nd th at S t e w a rt w as quali fi ed f orthe j ob.24 N o. 06

- 3278 I t i s unf or tunate to m e that the di str i ct c ourt ’ s f ocus on nom encl atur e obscur ed the re ali nquir y in thi s ca se, wh i ch i s whether Log Cabi n dis cri m in ated agai nst S tewart. In d ee d , I w on d er if th is c as e w ou ld h av e fa re d d iffer en tly i f the l ast sta ge of H I V w er e cal l ed “St age 5 H IV ” in st ead of“AIDS. ” Because ther e i s no m eani ngful differ ence b et w ee n a d isc rim in at ion cla im ba se d on be in g “ H IV p ositi ve” an d a discrim ination claim based on “A I D S” w hen the cl ai m ant has A I DS, and beca use Ido notbel i eve i ti s p o s s ib l e f o r a p e r s o n di a g no s e d wi th AI DS to p r o v i de ev i den ce ofhow HI V al oneaffects herm aj orl i fe a cti vi ti es, the di str i ct c ourtab u sed i ts disc re ti on wh en i t di sr eg ar ded ev i den ce b as ed o n the se a ss um pti o ns . H ad the d ist ric t c ou rtc on sid er ed t h e ev id en c e of St ew ar t’s d isa b ili ty, the EE O C w oul d have m et i ts thre shol d burden of dem onst ra ti ng tha t S tewart w as disabl ed for p urpose s o f the AD A
. Iwould r eve rs e.

10- 6- 08