In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ 

Nos. 21-1674 & 21-2580 

THOMAS OSTROWSKI,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v.

LAKE COUNTY, et al., 

Defendants-Appellees. 

____________________ 

Appeals from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division. 

No. 2:18-cv-0423-RLM — Robert L. Miller, Jr. Judge. 

____________________ 

ARGUED JANUARY 19 & APRIL 8, 2022 — DECIDED MAY 11, 2022 

____________________ 

Before WOOD, HAMILTON, and JACKSON-AKIWUMI, Circuit 

Judges. 

WOOD, Circuit Judge. Thomas Ostrowski worked for the 

Lake County (Indiana) Sheriff’s Department before a workplace injury left him permanently disabled. He now receives 

a monthly pension payment from the County. But here’s the 

rub: Lake County’s disability pension plan does not provide 

cost-of-living increases, while the County’s pension plan for 

non-disabled retirees does. Ostrowski brought this action 
2 Nos. 21-1674 & 21-2580 

under both federal and state law, arguing that the difference

between the two plans amounts to illegal disability discrimination.

The district court never reached the merits, holding instead that Ostrowski’s suit was barred by a waiver that he 

signed while settling earlier litigation that he had brought 

against Lake County. Ostrowski appealed from that judgment; later, he also appealed the district court’s award of fees 

and costs for the defendants. We have consolidated both appeals for disposition.

We hold that Ostrowski’s claims were not barred by the 

claim waiver, but that the defendants are entitled to prevail 

on other grounds. We reverse the award of fees and costs.

I 

Because the case was resolved on summary judgment, we 

view the facts in the light most favorable to Ostrowski, the 

non-moving party. See Dixon v. County of Cook, 819 F.3d 343, 

346 (7th Cir. 2016). In any case, the material facts in the account that follows are undisputed. 

A 

Ostrowski worked for about eight years as a police officer 

for the Lake County Sheriff’s Department (“the Department”). In 1996, he suffered a serious spinal injury during a 

training exercise. Although initially he returned to work, his 

condition worsened over time and forced him to undergo a 

double fusion surgery on his spine in 2003. Upon learning that 

the spinal surgery had failed, the Lake County Sheriff’s Merit 

Board concluded that Ostrowski was permanently disabled. 

He retired and now receives a monthly disability pension. 
Nos. 21-1674 & 21-2580 3

The Department provides monthly benefits to three 

groups: retirees, disabled former employees, and some surviving spouses of law enforcement officers. It uses two formulas, each of which incorporates the beneficiary’s final salary 

and years on the job, to calculate monthly benefits for disabled former employees and non-disabled retirees. For nondisabled retirees, the Department calculates benefits based on 

the number of years the beneficiary spent on the job. For those 

who retire early because of disability, Lake County calculates 

benefits as though the person spent 32 years working for the 

Department. (Surviving spouses’ benefits vary depending on 

when their spouses passed away.) 

Former employees and surviving spouses receiving retirement benefits are eligible for an annual cost-of-living increase 

to their benefits once they turn 55 years old. Those receiving 

disability pension benefits are not. Although Ostrowski 

turned 55 in 2016, he has never received a cost-of-living adjustment. Believing that this system unlawfully discriminates 

against employees who became disabled on the job, Ostrowski sued Lake County, the Department, the Lake County 

Treasurer, and the Pension Committee of the Pension Plan of 

the Lake County Sheriff, arguing that the county’s policy violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 

§ 12112, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, 

and state law. 

B 

This lawsuit was not Ostrowski’s first against Lake 

County. From 2014 to 2015, he worked for the County as a 911 

dispatcher. In 2016, he brought a lawsuit alleging that he was 

forced to leave the job because his employer denied him 
4 Nos. 21-1674 & 21-2580 

reasonable accommodations. Ostrowski named the Lake 

County Board of Commissioners, the Lake County E-911 

Commission, the Lake County Council, and two individual 

supervisors as defendants in his 2016 complaint. This separate 

litigation ended in February 2017 with a settlement agreement 

between Ostrowski and Lake County. Ostrowski’s counsel 

drafted the 2017 settlement agreement, but the document provides that the common rule of construction resolving ambiguities “against the drafting party shall not be employed in” interpreting it. 

At the end of paragraph 1 of the 2017 settlement agreement, the following language appears: “Nothing in ... this 

Agreement shall change, modify, terminate, or affect in any 

way Ostrowski’s pension, health benefits, or any other retirement benefits to which Ostrowski has a right, now or in the 

future.” 

Paragraph 2 of the agreement is entitled “release”; it reads 

as follows in pertinent part: 

Ostrowski ... hereby forever releases and discharges Defendants, their affiliates, subsidiaries, related entities, and each of their respective 

successors, ... agents, employees, attorneys, and 

representatives ... from any and all claims, demands, damages, causes of actions, rights,... 

and liabilities, of whatsoever kind or nature, 

known and unknown, matured or contingent, 

asserted or unasserted, foreseen or unforeseen, 

arising prior to this Agreement, including, but not 

limited to those resulting in any way from or in 

any way growing out of or arising from Ostrowski's employment with Defendants and 
Nos. 21-1674 & 21-2580 5

termination of such employment which could 

have been discovered, including, but not limited to, claims arising under the Americans with 

Disabilities Act[.] ... Ostrowski understands 

and agrees that any claims he may have under 

the aforementioned statute, or any other federal, state, or local law, ordinance, rule or regulation are effectively waived under this Agreement. No rights or claims arising after the execution 

of this agreement are waived hereby.

(Emphasis added). The agreement also provides that Ostrowski released Lake County from any “damages or claims 

that are unknown to him at present” that “may arise, develop 

or be discovered in the future.”

C 

When Ostrowski brought the present action, the defendants raised the release in the 2017 settlement agreement as a 

defense. The district court found that the release applied and 

granted summary judgment to the defendants on that basis. 

It reasoned that Ostrowski knew that his pension did not include cost-of-living increases before he signed the 2017 agreement. It also concluded that Ostrowski had waived any claims 

against the Sheriff, Treasurer, and Pension Committee because they were “affiliates” or “related entities” of Lake 

County. Ostrowski’s first appeal, No. 21-1674, challenges that 

judgment.

D 

Shortly after the district court entered its judgment, the defendants moved for an award of fees and costs. The sole basis 
6 Nos. 21-1674 & 21-2580 

for their motion was paragraph 15 of the 2017 settlement 

agreement, which provides that: 

In the event Ostrowski or Defendants bring a 

lawsuit relating to a breach of, or the enforcement of, this Agreement, or any of the Released 

Parties assert this Agreement as a defense to an 

action brought by or on behalf of Ostrowski, the 

prevailing party shall be entitled to seek attorneys’ fees from the other party. This provision 

does not apply to any action or claim Ostrowski 

may assert under any federal or state statute or 

law that prohibits the recovery of such fees, 

costs and expenses by the Released Parties.

The district court granted the motion and awarded the defendants $221,577.25 in attorneys’ fees and $4,487.08 in costs. 

Ostrowski’s second appeal, No. 21-2580, challenges this decision. 

II

We take a fresh look at a district court’s grant of summary 

judgment. Dixon, 819 F.3d at 346. Summary judgment is warranted when there are no genuine disputes of material fact 

between the parties and no reasonable factfinder could find 

for the non-movant on an essential element on which it bears 

the burden of proof at trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 

317, 322 (1986). 

Paragraph 6 of the 2017 settlement agreement states that 

the applicable law is that of Indiana (excluding its choice-oflaw rules). That state’s courts interpret settlement agreements, like other contracts, “with the intention of the parties 

regarding the purpose of the document governing” and by 
Nos. 21-1674 & 21-2580 7

giving unambiguous contract terms “their clear and ordinary 

meaning.” Haire v. Parker, 957 N.E.2d 190, 195–96 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2011). 

Paragraph 1 expressly addresses the topic of Ostrowski’s 

retirement benefits. It states that “[n]othing in ... this Agreement shall change, modify, terminate, or affect in any way Ostrowski’s pension, health benefits, or any other retirement 

benefits to which Ostrowski has a right, now or in the future.” 

In other words, the settlement agreement in its entirety has no 

effect on Ostrowski’s disability pension. The release appears 

in paragraph 2 of the agreement, and thus is one of those 

things that does not “change, modify, terminate, or affect in 

any way” Ostrowski’s disability pension. 

That is enough to dispose of the threshold issue on which 

the district court relied. In the interest of completeness, however, we add a word about Ostrowski’s alternative argument. 

It is based on the preservation of “rights or claims arising after 

the execution” of the settlement agreement. If each of Ostrowski’s payments after the effective date of the settlement 

generates a fresh legal claim, then this would be an alternative 

path for him. 

The Supreme Court held in Bay Area Laundry and Dry 

Cleaning Pension Trust Fund v. Frebar Corp. of California, that, 

for the purposes of a Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act claim, “each missed [pension] payment creates a 

separate cause of action.” 522 U.S. 192, 195 (1997). The general 

rule is that a new claim accrues with each payment of an installment obligation, because a plaintiff typically must wait 

until a defendant “misses a particular payment before suing 

to collect that payment.” See id. at 208 (emphasis in the original); see also Kuhn v. Kuhn, 273 Ind. 67, 70 (1980). The pension 
8 Nos. 21-1674 & 21-2580 

obligation at issue in Bay Area Laundry, like the one in Ostrowski’s case, was paid in installments; therefore, the Court 

said, each new pension payment (or non-payment) generates 

a unique claim. Applying that reasoning to Ostrowski’s case, 

each payment after he signed the settlement agreement in 

February 2017 has generated a distinct claim that falls outside 

the scope of the release. 

Lake County relies on Fair v. International Flavors & Fragrances, Inc., 905 F.2d 1114 (7th Cir. 1990), but the two cases 

differ in important ways. As we explained in Fair, under Illinois law a general release of claims applied to “all claims of

which a signing party has actual knowledge or that he could 

have discovered upon reasonable inquiry.” Id. at 1116 (internal quotation marks omitted). But this is a default rule, which 

applies only if there is no contractual language to the contrary. There is such language in the 2017 agreement. Moreover, to the extent that Fair is in tension with Bay Area Laundry, 

it is the latter case that controls.

Ostrowski also argues that the 2017 settlement agreement 

does not affect his claims against the Sheriff, Treasurer, and 

the Pension Committee because these entities were not parties 

to the agreement. Accepting the defendants’ argument, the 

district court found that these additional entities were covered because the waiver in the agreement covered not only 

the County, but also its “affiliates,” “officers,” and “agents.” 

This raises an issue of state law. We see no reason to delve into 

it, because nothing turns on it. The general exclusion in paragraph 1 of the agreement for matters affecting Ostrowski’s 

pension resolves this part of the case. We thus move on to the 

merits.
Nos. 21-1674 & 21-2580 9

III

A 

Ostrowski argues that the defendants, by providing a costof-living increase for retirement benefits while denying one 

for disability pension benefits, violated Title I of the ADA, 42 

U.S.C. §§ 12111–17. But as Ostrowski recognizes, this claim is 

going nowhere, because we already have decided that “retired and other former workers are not protected” by Title I of 

the ADA. See Morgan v. Joint Admin. Bd., 268 F.3d 456, 457–58 

(7th Cir. 2001); see also EEOC v. CAN Ins. Cos., 96 F.3d 1039, 

1043–44 (7th Cir. 1996). In Morgan, we held that a retirement 

plan did not violate the employment provisions of the ADA 

by extending a cost-of-living increase to non-disabled retirees 

but not those who retire early because of disability. See 268 

F.3d at 457–58. That resolves Ostrowski’s case.

Ostrowski’s only response is to urge us to reconsider Morgan. We are not inclined to do so. That said, we confirm that 

he has preserved this issue for further review, should the en 

banc court or the Supreme Court wish to take it up.

Ostrowski’s complaint also invoked section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794. But on appeal, Ostrowski’s 

brief barely touched on this theory. This argument is thus forfeited. See Guzman v. City of Chicago, 689 F.3d 740, 744 n.3 (7th

Cir. 2012) (“Perfunctory and undeveloped arguments” are 

forfeited. (cleaned up)).

B 

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the states from denying any person “the equal 

protection of the laws.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV. When state 

action discriminates against a suspect class or denies a 
10 Nos. 21-1674 & 21-2580 

fundamental right, courts apply strict scrutiny. See Srail v. Village of Lisle, 588 F.3d 940, 943 (7th Cir. 2009). Otherwise, it is 

enough for the state actor to show a rational basis for the classification. Id.

Ostrowski’s claim, as he concedes, qualifies only for rational basis review. See City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 

473 U.S. 432, 446 (1985) (holding that mental disability is not 

a suspect classification subject to heightened scrutiny under 

the Equal Protection Clause); United States v. Harris, 197 F.3d 

870, 876 (7th Cir. 1999) (holding that people with disabilities 

“are not a suspect or quasi-suspect class.”). A local policy that 

treats two groups of people differently will pass muster so 

long as there is some “rational relationship between the disparity of treatment and some legitimate governmental purpose.” Srail, 588 F.3d at 946. Local decisions can survive rational basis review even if they only imperfectly achieve the 

legitimate government interest they aim to advance. Id. Government actors may rely on disability, like other classifications reviewed under the rational basis standard, as a proxy 

for other qualities or characteristics, even if it “proves to be an 

inaccurate proxy in any individual case[.]” Stevens v. Ill. Dep’t 

of Transp., 210 F.3d 732, 738 (7th Cir. 2000) (quoting Kimel v. 

Fla. Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62, 84 (2000)). 

Lake County has a legitimate interest in providing pension plans that meet the differing needs of distinct groups.

Moreover, the cost-of-living adjustment is only one of several 

relevant differences in the plans before us. Non-disabled retirees must contribute a portion of their salary to the plan 

every year until they are eligible for retirement, and they become eligible only after 20 years on the job or at age 60. Employees who retire on account of disability begin receiving 
Nos. 21-1674 & 21-2580 11

payments as soon as they stop working, no matter how long 

they have paid into the pension system. Non-disabled retirees 

receive benefits based on the number of years they worked 

for the Sheriff’s Department. By contrast, Ostrowski’s disability pension is calculated as though he had spent 32 years 

working for the Department, though he in fact was on the job 

for only about eight years. And while disabled retirees do not 

receive cost-of-living adjustments, they do receive a lump 

sum refund of all contributions they previously made to the 

retirement plan, with interest. Non-disabled retirees do not 

have that option. 

Viewed as a whole, the different plans provided to disabled and non-disabled former employees are rationally related to Lake County’s legitimate interest in providing benefits that meet the needs of its employees, present and past. 

Lake County rationally could believe that disabled former 

employees will benefit more from an up-front lump sum payment returning their retirement contributions than from a 

cost-of-living adjustment provided years in the future. Lake 

County also has an interest in retention, the promotion of 

long-term careers in the Sheriff’s Department, and the provision of more generous benefits to the employees who worked 

for it the longest. There is nothing irrational about providing 

more generous benefits for former employees who worked 

longer for the Sheriff’s Department or who made more annual 

contribution payments. Similarly, Lake County could permissibly believe that it is appropriate to provide more generous 

benefits to surviving spouses of employees who died on the 

job than to disabled employees, in light of the sacrifice those 

families made. 
12 Nos. 21-1674 & 21-2580 

Lake County’s system need not be perfectly designed to 

achieve its goals. Rational basis review “is not a license for 

courts to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic” of government 

agencies’ choices. Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 319 (1993) (citations omitted); see also Johnson v. Daly, 339 F.3d 582, 587 (7th 

Cir. 2003) (collecting cases). As long as a policy has some rational connection to a legitimate state interest, improving it is 

a task for the democratic branches of government, rather than 

the courts. Lake County easily meets that test.

C 

Ostrowski also asserts a novel state-law claim under an Indiana statute providing that Sheriff’s Departments’ disability 

pension payments “as a result of line of duty activities ... must 

be in reasonable amounts.” IND. CODE § 36-8-10-15(b). We assume, without deciding, that this state statute supports a private right of action. 

Ostrowski argues that a disability pension scheme that 

does not provide a cost-of-living increase is per se unreasonable. But Indiana courts have not gone that far. They have not 

even explained what constitutes a “reasonable” disability 

pension payment, much less held that a “reasonable” amount 

necessarily includes a cost-of-living increase. Federal courts 

must exercise caution before recognizing novel legal theories 

brought under uncharted state laws. See Pisciotta v. Old Nat’l

Bancorp, 499 F.3d 629, 635–36 (7th Cir. 2007). Because Ostrowski cannot point to some state law supporting his theory, 

we decline to hold that Indiana Code § 36-8-10-15 requires a 

cost-of-living increase for all disability pensions. 
Nos. 21-1674 & 21-2580 13

IV 

Although Lake County has prevailed on the merits, we 

conclude that it is not entitled to costs and fees. This court 

generally reviews fee awards for abuse of discretion, but we 

evaluate de novo the legal analysis underlying a fee award. 

EEOC v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 907 F.3d 968, 971 (7th Cir. 2018). 

The district court held that the defendants, as the prevailing parties, were entitled to fees and costs pursuant to the 

terms of the 2017 settlement agreement.1 In so holding, the 

district court repeated the same mistake it made on the merits. 

Nothing in the settlement agreement affects any claims related to Ostrowski’s pension benefits in any way. That means 

that the fees provision of the settlement agreement has no effect on Ostrowski’s lawsuit about his pension benefits. If the 

contract does not apply, the defendants must bear the cost of 

their own litigation. See Osler Inst., Inc. v. Forde, 386 F.3d 816, 

818 (7th Cir. 2004) (“Indiana adheres to the American rule, 

under which, in the absence of a statutory provision or an 

agreement providing for fees, each party is required to pay its 

own attorney fees.”). Therefore, the fee award must be set 

aside. 

V 

Ostrowski’s present lawsuit is not barred by his unrelated 

settlement agreement with Lake County, but his claims fail on 

1 Ostrowski filed for bankruptcy while this case was working its way 

through the courts. When someone declares bankruptcy, there is an automatic stay of most ongoing proceedings against her. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). 

The responsible bankruptcy court may modify the automatic stay upon 

request. Here, the bankruptcy court granted Ostrowski’s request to lift the 

automatic stay for his fee appeal, and so we are free to resolve it now. 
14 Nos. 21-1674 & 21-2580 

other grounds. We therefore AFFIRM the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment to the defendants. We 

REVERSE the district court’s order granting fees and costs to the 

defendants.