### In th e



# United States Court of Appeals Forthe Seventh Cir c uit

No. 18-2544

E D W AR D L. Y OUN G MAN

, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

P E ORI A C OUNT

Y , et al. , Defendants-Appellees.

Appea l fro m the U ni ted S ta tes Di stri ct Co urt fo r the

Centra l Di s tri ct o f Il l i n o i s. N o . 1 :1 6 -cv -0 1 0 0 5 -JBM -JEH — Joe Billy McDa de , Judg e.

A RGU E D S E PT E MB E R 1 1 , 2019

— D E C I D E D J ANU AR Y 24, 2020

Befor e R I P PL E, R OVN E R

, and B AR

RE TT , Circuit Judges

. R OVN E R , Cir cuit Judge. Edw a r d Y oungma n w a s placed on medi cal leav e fr om hi s j ob wi th the Peor i a County J uv eni le Detenti on Center a fter he infor med hi s super vi sor th a t he could n o longer w or k shi fts in t h e f aci li ty’s c ontr ol r oom. Y oungman had r ar ely w or ked in the contr ol room dur ing hi s tenur e wi th the detenti on center , but when changes in job2 No. 18-2544

r otati ons h ad r esulted in hi s tempor a r y a ssi gnment to the
c ontr ol r oom, he exper i enced headaches, nausea, and di zzi

ness, among other symptoms. Y oungman asked that h e n ot be assi gned to the c ontr ol r oom in the futur e a s a n a cc ommodati on, but w as told that w as not possi b l e; he w as instr ucted that he c ould r etur n t o w or k i f and when hi s condi ti on i mpr ov ed. After Y oungman’s leav e ti me expi red, his p o s i ti on w as fi lled, and he found employment elsewher e, he fi led thi s sui t under the Amer i cans wi th Di sabi li ti es Act, allegi ng that hi s employ er had refused to a ccommodate hi s di sabi li ty a nd for ced hi m out of hi s posi ti on. The di str i ct cour t gr anted summary j udgment to the d e f endants, reasoning that Y oungman w as r esponsi ble f o r the br eakdown of the inter acti v e pr ocess r equi r ed by th e ADA. Y oungman v
. Kouri, 2 018 WL 3186920 (C.D. Ill. June 28, 2018). W e affi r m, but on a di ffer ent gr ound.

I. Y oungman w or ked as a y outh counselor a t the Peor i a County J u v eni le Detenti on Center begi nning i n 1998; as such, he w a s techni cally an employ ee of the Chi ef Judge of the local ci r cui t cour t. Y

outh counselor s at the detenti on c e n t e r ar e
r esponsi ble f or the super v i si on, car e, safety , and counselin g of the j uv eni les detained at the 63-bed faci li ty

. Y oungman w as di agnosed wi th a pi tui tar y tumor and
acr omegaly in 1993 and had sur ger y to r emov e the tumor and

a por t io n o f hi s pi tui tar y gland the following y ear
. He subseque n tly had a thyr oi dectomy in 2011, r esulting in bo t h hypothyr oi di sm and hypocalcemi a. After another y outh counselor c omp lained in 2010 about unfai r j ob assi gnments at the detenti on center , a n inv esti gati onNo. 18-2544 3

w as c onducted and i t w as r ecommended that the center ’s super intende n t, B r i an Br own, r ev i ew the rotati on of assi gnments. Br own w ould later tak e t he posi ti on that ev er y y outh counselor needed to be tr ained in and r otated thr ough all thr ee assi gnments at the detenti on center : ( 1) contr ol room, (2) li v ing uni ts, and (3) floater s. Up unti l that ti m e, assi gnments had not been m ade equally

, and i t w as c ommon knowledge that not all y outh offi cer s knew how to per for m the duti es associ a ted wi th all thr ee a ssi gnments. Y oungman hi mself had only w or ked in the c ontr ol r oom on 10 to 14 occasi ons ov er the cour se of h i s 13 y ear s at the detenti on center

. Begi nnin g in 2012, all y outh counsel o r s on the fi r st shi ft (whi ch Y oungman w or ked) w er e
r equi r ed to w or k in the contr ol r oom for at least one or tw o
w eeks annually

, to ensur e they could per for m the duti es in that post. Y oungman w as assi gned to w or k in the c o nt r ol room for the w eek of July 29, 2012, a l though he w as not told that thi s
w as for tr a ining pur poses and w o ul d only be a tempor ar y assi gnment. As Y

oungman d escr i

b es i t, th e c ontr ol r oom a t that ti me w as packed wi th electr oni c equi pment that emitted

v ar i ous humming, beeping, or buzzing noi s e s and r equi r ed the
o p e r ator to make rapi d tur ning m ov ements in or der to mo ni t o r multi ple v i d eo scr eens, some of whi ch di splay ed multi ple
camer a feeds fr om ar ound the detenti on center

. Y oungman began to exper i ence sev er e headaches, nausea, d r y heav es, di zziness, and pain t h a t r a di ated up and down hi s neck and head. He took a si ck day on July 31, and r etur ned to w or k on August 1 wi th a note fr om hi s physi ci an, Dr

. Jacob D oer ing, indi cating that he could not w or k in t h e contr ol r oom due to4 No. 18-2544
medi cal concer ns. Br own r equested fur ther infor mati on fr om Y oungman, adv i sing hi m that Doer ing’s note w as to o v a gue. Y oungman w or ked the r emainder of the w eek in the contr ol room, taki ng tw o hour s of si ck leav e on August 2. He

w as t h en placed on li ght duty whi ch, i r oni cally , entai led reassi gnme n t t o th e c o n tr ol room, wher e he w or ked fr om August 5 thr ough 9. On August 5, Y oungman pr ov id e d a follow-up note fr om Dr

. Doer ing indi catin g that Y oung man w as exper i

encing moti on si ckness due to the li ghts, noi se, c amer as, and telev i si ons in the contr ol r oom a nd that Y oungman should not be assi gned to w or k in that r oom. 1 Y oungman also p r ov i ded a
wr i tten statement of hi s own indi ca t ing that although he w as capable of per for m ing all d uti es r equi r ed in the contr ol r oom, he exper i enced the symptoms d escr i b ed abov e in that assi gnment due to the c onfined space of the r oom coupled wi th the lar ge a m o u n t of electr oni cs and the acti v i ti es and noi se associ ated wi th them. Y oungman r equested a ssi gnment to the li ving u ni ts or secur i ty uni t (a li v ing uni t for j uv eni les on lockdown statu s ) of the detenti on center or , alter nati v ely

, that he be assi gned as a floater

. Br own or der ed Y

ou ng m a n to under go a fi tness for duty exami nati on wi th the c o u nty’s physi ci an, Dr

. Dr u Hauter

. H a u t e r exami n ed Y

oungman and c oncluded that he could onl y
r etur n to w or k wi th r estr i cti ons: speci fi cally , he s ai d that Y oungman could n ot v i ew mul t i ple telev i si on or moni tor
scr eens, m ust av oi d r api d alter n ati ng m ov ements and flashing

1 Co nsi stent wi th Dr. Do eri ng’s di a gno si s, we, l i ke the pa rti es, sha l l trea t the mo ti o n si ckness Yo ungman ex peri enced when a ssi gned to the co ntro l
ro o m a s the rel ev a nt l i mi ta ti o n o nYo ungman’s ab il i ty to wo rk.No. 18-2544 5
li ghts, and could not engage in commer ci a l dr i v ing. Absent
s u c h r estr i cti ons, Dr

. Hauter indi cated, Y oungman p osed an i mminent r i sk of i nj ur y to hi mself orother s
. After consult in g wi th human r esour c es p er sonnel, Br own and another detenti on super v i sor adv i sed Y oun g man that he

w as bein g p l a c e d on medi cal l eav e u nti l hi s c ondi ti on i m pr ov ed. Y

oungman asked i f h e c o u ld j ust not be assi gned to the contr ol r oom, b ut Br own told hi m tha t w as n ot possi ble. Nei ther par ty pr oposed an alter n a t i v e accommodati on. In connecti on wi th Y

ou n g man’s m edi c al leav e, Y oungman and Doer ing compl e ted paper w or k r eaffi r ming that Y oungman
w as not capable of w or ki ng in t he contr ol r oom. Y oungman commenced leav e u nder the Fami l y and Medi cal Leav e Act on S eptember 6, 2 012. Y

oungman submi tt e d m o n thl y r e p o r t s fr o m Doer ing i n di cating that hi s condi ti on had not changed. In Febr uar y 2013, the county adv i sed Y oungman that h i s FMLA leav e ti me had expi r ed and that hi s posi ti on w ould be fi lled, but that when he w a s able to retur n to w or k, he w ould be placed in the fi r st av ai lable opening most compar able to hi s pr ev i ous posi ti on. In Febr u ar y 2013, Y oungman fi led a char ge of di scr i m inati on w i th the Illinoi s Depar tment of Human Ri ghts (“IDHR”), allegi ng inter alia that he ha d b e e n for ced onto medi cal leav e due to hi s di sabi li ty and that hi s employ er had fail e d to accommodate that di sabi li ty

. He fi led a par allel char ge wi th the feder al Equal E m ployment Oppor tuni ty Commi ssi on (“EEOC”). In Apr i l 2013, Y

oungman obtai n ed a new j ob elsewher e and stopped submi tti ng monthly updates to P e or i a County

. That led to a ser i es of w ar nings that he w as not in compli ance wi th6 No. 18-2544
medi cal leav e r equi r ements and needed to s ubmi t appr opr i ate documentati on of ei ther hi s ongoi n g di sabi li ty or hi s r eadiness to r etur n to w or k and/or meet wi th Br own. Y oungman di d neit h e r ; on S eptember 29, 2013, he n oti fi ed the c ounty by fax that h e w as r esi gni ng hi s employment, to the extent he w as sti ll consi der ed to be an acti v e employ ee. Y oungman’s resi gnati on
w as not accepted: on October 1, 2013, Br own n oti fi ed h i m that he w as di schar ged for insubor dinati on. S hor tly ther eafter

, an IDHR inv estig ator i ssued recommended findings concluding that su bstanti a l ev i dence s uppor ted Y oungman’s allegati ons that the C hie f Judge (as hi s
n ominal employ er ) had fai led to accommodate h i s d i s abi li t y and instead had for ced h i m onto medi cal leav e. The EEOC in tur n i ssued a finding of r easonable c ause to b eli ev e t h a t the Chi ef Judge had di scr i minated agai nst Y oungman in v i olati on of the ADA on the same gr ounds. I t t he r eafter i ssued Y oungman a noti ce of hi s r i ght to br ing sui t agai nst hi s for mer employ er
. Y oungman pr oceeded to fi le sui t under the ADA contending that the Chi ef Judge had not a ccommodated hi s di s abi li ty; and ulti mately the d i str i ct cour t enter ed summary j udgment in fav or of the Chi ef Judge. Judge McDa d e c o n cluded that the tr i er of f act c ould find that Y oun g m a n h ad a cogni zable di sabi li ty (hypothyr oi di sm) that substanti ally inter fer ed wi th

a maj or li fe acti v i ty (hi s endocr ine functi oni ng). 2 0 18 WL 3186920, a t *8–*9. Judge McDade also concluded that Y oungman w as a quali fi ed indi v i dual who could per for m the essenti al duti es of a y outh counselor at the j uv eni le detenti on faci li ty

. Id. , at *11. He found that the ev i dence w as mi xed as to whether w or ki ng in the contr ol r oom for mor e than one or tw oNo. 18-2544 7

w eeks of th e y ear (for tr aining pur poses) w as essenti al, and noted that Y

oungman had submi tted ev i dence t h a t h e could

w or k in the contr ol r o o m o n a n emer gency basi s and h ad, in fact, w or ked in the contr ol r oom successfully fo r n ine d a ys befor e he w as placed on medi cal leav e. Id. But Judge McDade deter mined that Y oungman w as
r esponsi ble for the b r eakdown of the inter a cti v e pr ocess
r equi r ed by the ADA to deter mine whether hi s di sabi li ty could be accommodated. Id. , a t *13– * 1 4. He r easoned that (1) Y oungman di d not pr ov i de hi s employ er wi th the necessary clar i fi cati ons co n cer ning hi s medi cal r estr i cti ons to per mi t a deter minati on of what, i f any , accommodati on w a s possi ble, and (2) whi le on medi cal leav e, Y oungman u lti m a tely s topped sending updates on hi s condi ti on to hi s employ er a nd refused to a p p e a r for a meeti ng wi th S uper intendent B r own. Id. , a t *13–*14. Consequently

, “no reasonable tr i er of fact could hold the Chi ef Judge li able for fai ling to pr ov i de r easonable accommodati ons to Y

oungman.” Id. , at *14.

II. W e rev i ew the entr y of summar y j udgment in fav or of the Chi ef Judge de nov o, constr u ing the ev i dence in the li ght most fav or able to the n on-mov ant, in thi s case Y oungman. See Burton v
. Bd. o

f Regents of Univ

. of W

is. Sy s
. , 8 5 1 F .3d 690, 694 (7th Ci r
. 2017). T h e Chi ef Judge w as enti tled to summary j udgment so long as Y oungman fai led t o p r e s ent ev i dence suffi ci ent to cr eate a di spute of m ater i al fact on a ny essenti al (and contested) e l e m e n t of hi s clai m as to whi ch he bear s the bur den of p r oof. See id. (ci ti ng Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S

. 317, 323, 106 S

. Ct. 2548, 2552 ( 1986)). Because our r ev i ew i s de8 No. 18-2544

nov o, we can a ffi r m on any gr ound fai r ly pr esented below and suppor ted by t he r ecor d. Costello v
. G rundon , 6 51 F .3d 614, 636–37 (7th Ci r
. 2011). The ADA pr ov i des that “[n]o cov er ed enti ty shall di scr i mi

nate agai nst a quali fi ed indi v i dual wi th a di sabi li ty on the basi s of di sabi li ty in r egar d to j ob a ppli cati on p r ocedur es, the hi r ing, adv a ncement, or di schar ge o f e m p l o ye e s, e m p l o ye e c o mpensati on, job tr aining, a n d other ter ms, condi ti ons, a n d pr i vi l eges of employment.” 42 U.S .C. § 1 2112(a). Di scr i minati on c an take the for m of tr eati ng a di sabled employ ee di ffer ently fr om other

w or ker s or fai lin g to make r easonable accommodati ons to the known li mi tati ons of th e e m p l o ye e
. S ee § 12112(b); e.g. , Scheidler
v
. Indiana , 914 F

. 3d 53 5, 541 (7th Ci r
. 2019). Y oungman i s pur suing a fai lur e-to-accommodate clai m. T o pr ev ai l on such a clai m, Y

oungman must show (1) he was a quali fi ed indi v i dual wi th a di sabi li ty

, (2) hi s employ er w a s aw ar e of hi s di s ab i li ty , and (3) the employ er fai led to r easonably accommodate hi s di sabi li ty

. E.g. , Rowlands v
. U.P

.S. - Ft. W

ayne, 901 F .3d 792, 798 (7th Ci r . 2018). When a quali fi ed employ ee has r equested an accommodati on, the ADA r equi r es both par ti es to e n g a g e in an infor mal inter a cti v e pr ocess to i denti f y an appr opr i ate a ccommodati on, 29 C.F .R. § 16302( o )(3); e.g. , St e r n v
. St. Anthony’s Health Ctr

. , 788 F .3d 276, 2 92 (7th C ir

. 2 015), and as n oted abov e, Judge M c D a de found that Y oungman had fai led to pr ov i de t he

n e c e s s a r y c l a r i fi c a t i o n s r e g a r d in g hi s l i m i t ati ons and ulti mately abandoned the inter acti v e pr ocess altogether when he ceased pr ov i d ing status r epor ts and di d not r espond to h i s employ er ’s inqui r i es and r equests to m eet wh il e o n leav e. 2018 WLNo. 18-2544 9 3186920, at *13–*14. But w e beli ev e that Y oungman’s clai m f ai ls
on a mor e basi c point. The statute, as w e hav e sai d, pr ohibi ts a n e mploy er fr om “di s cr i minat[ing] agai nst a quali fi ed indi v i dual wi th a di s ab i li ty on the b a sis of di sabi li ty[.]” § 12112(a) (emphasis o u r s). It follows that the fai lur e to accommodate a di sabled employ ee’s par ti cular li mi tati on amounts to di scr i minati on “ on th e b a si s of di sabi li ty”only i f the li mi tati on i s caused by the d i s abi li ty

. See A r n old v
. County of Cook , 220 F

. S u pp. 2d 893, 896 (N.D. I l l

. 2002). Put a di ffer ent w ay , ther e must be “some c ausal connecti on betw een the maj or li fe a ct i v i ty that i s l i mi ted and the
accommo dati on s ought.” Squibb v
. Mem’l Med. Ctr

. , 4 97 F .3d 775, 785 (7th Ci r
. 2007); see also D e s mond v
. M ukasey, 530 F .3d 944, 959 (D.C. Ci r
. 2 008) (Rehabi li tati on Act); Nuzum v
. Ozark Auto. Distribs., Inc. , 432 F .3d 839, 8 4 8 (8th Ci r
. 2 005); Felix v
. New Y ork City T ransit Auth. , 3 24 F .3d 102, 1 06–07 (2d Ci r
. 2003). As w e hav e noted, Y

oungman had a p or ti on of hi s pi tui tar y gland and the enti r ety of hi s thyr oi d gland r emov ed, a nd as a
r esult of h i s thyr oi dectomy, he suffer s from both hypothyr oi di sm and hypocalcemi a, whi ch in tu r n r e qui r e hi m to take medi cati on a nd d ietar y supplements. A physi cal or mental condi ti on must substanti ally li mi t one or mor e maj or l ife acti v i ti es in or der to quali fy as a d i sabi li ty under the ADA. 42 U.S .C. § 12102 (1) & (2); 29 C.F .R. § 1630.2(j )(1)(i i ). The di s tr i ct
cour t, no t ing that di seases li ke di abetes whi ch affect the functi oni ng of the body’s endocr ine system quali fy as di sabi li

ti es, concluded that Y

oungman’s hypothyr oi d i s m should be tr eated in the same w ay
. 2018 WL 3186920, at *9. The Chi ef10 No. 18-2544 Judge c onte s ts that conclusi on, but for pr esent pur poses, w e may assume that i t i s cor rect. The pr oblem, for Y

oungman, i s the l ack o f a causal nexus betw een hi s hypothyr oi di sm and the p ar ti cul ar l i mi tati on for whi ch h e seeks an accommodati on. Y oungman pr esumes that the moti on si ckness he suffer s when assi gned to the detenti on center ’s contr ol r oom i s the r esult of hi s hypothyr oi di sm. But he ci tes n o ev i dence in the r ecor d to suppor t that necessary causal link. Y ou n g m a n ’ s p hy s i c i an, Dr

. D oer ing, w as questi oned on thi s poi nt dur in g hi s deposi ti on. Doer ing unequi v ocally stated that he knew of no connecti on betw een moti on si ckness and
acr omegaly

, hypothyr oi di sm, hypocalcemi a, or th e medi cati ons and s u p p l e ments Y oungman w as taki ng to tr eat hi s hypothy r o idi sm and hypocalcemi a. R. 34-32, Doer ing Dep. 17–18, 33–37, 42–44. Although Y oungman’s c ounsel in di cated

a t o r al ar gument that Doer in g had p osi ted a causal l ink betw een hypothyr oi di sm and moti on si ckness in the notes he had submi tted to the detenti on center on Y oungman’s behalf,
our own r ev i ew of the notes rev eals no such su g g e st i on. (W e may set asi de the fact that Y oungman w it h d r ew hi s desi gnati on of Doer ing as hi s own exper t). The only ev i dence w e can find in that v e in i s Y

oungman’s own statement that when he

w as e x a mined by Doer ing on August 2, 2012, Doer ing told hi m, “The medi cal condi ti ons y ou hav e and the di sabi li ti es y ou hav e can be exacerbated by cer tai n sti muli .” R. 37-15, Y oungman Dep. 1 22. But Dr

. Doer ing’s out-of-cour t statement to Y oungman amounts to hear say whi ch i s bey ond the li mi ted excepti on set for th in Feder al Rule of Ev i dence 803(4) for statements that pati ents make to thei r physi ci ans for p ur p osesNo. 18-2544 11
of medi cal di agnosi s or tr eatment. See Bombard v
. Ft. W ayne Newspapers, Inc. , 92 F .3d 560, 564 ( 7th Ci r
. 1996); accord, Field v
. T rigg Cnty. Hosp., Inc. , 386 F .3d 729, 735–36 (6th Ci r
. 2004); Stull
v
. Fuqua Indus., Inc. , 9 0 6 F

. 2 d 1271, 1273–74 ( 8th Ci r
. 1990); Bulthuis v
. Rexall Corp. , 789 F .2d 1315, 1316 (9th Ci r
. 1985) (per
cur i am). Y

oungman has poi n ted to no other ev i d ence fr om any other medi cal exper t posi ti ng a causal link betw een hypothyr oi di sm and moti on si ckness. 2
Wi thout pr o o f that hi s moti on si ckness i s caused by a condi ti on th a t quali fi es as a di sabi li ty under the ADA, Y oungman cannot show that hi s employ er di scr i min a t e d agai nst hi m on the basi s of that di sabi li ty . As that i s an essenti al element of hi s ADA clai m, the detenti on center w a s enti tled to summar y j udgment. III. The di str i ct cour t pr oper ly gr anted s u mmar y j udgment in fav or of the def e n d a nt

. Assuming that Y oungman has a cogni zable di sabi li ty

, he fai led to offer ev i d ence indi cating a

2 Bel o w and o n a ppea l , Yo ungman ha s ci ted the M ER C K M A N U A L a nd

v a ri o us o ther medi ca l pub li ca ti o ns a s ev i dence tha t certa i n o f the in d ivid u a l

a dv erse sympto ms he ex per i e nced whi l e wo rki ng i n the co ntro l ro o m (hea da che a nd na usea, fo r ex a mpl e) co ul d b e ex pl a i n ed b y hi s underl yi ng medi ca l co ndi ti ons or the medi ca ti o ns h e to ok to a ddress them. S ee, e.g
. , R

. 3 7 a t 1 8

– 2 2 ¶ 5 2

. But these so urces do no t estab l i sh, so fa r a s we ca n di s cern, a l i nk b etween Y o ungman’s co ndi ti o ns a nd/ o r medi ca t i o ns a nd the
co n stel l a ti on o f sympto ms co m pri si ng m otion sickness , whi ch i s the pa rti cul a r l i mi t a ti o n tha t Dr. Do eri ng ci t ed a s the rea so n why Y o ungman co u l d no t wo rk i n the co ntro l ro o m.12 No. 18-2544
causal nexus betw een that di sabi li ty and the par ti cular li mi tati on ( moti on si ckness) for whi ch he sought an a ccommodati on. AFFIRMED