## 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. 09

- 3143 D ARR ELL L Y NN M IL LER, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. I LLINO IS D EPART MENT OF T RA NS PO RT A T I ON, D efend a nt-A pp ellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Illino is. No . 3:07- cv-00677

—Wi ll iam D. Stiehl, Judge .
A RG UE D A UGUS T 4, 2010

— D ECI DE D M AY 10, 2011

Befo re P OSNER, R OV NER, a nd H A MI L T ON, C ircu it Judges. H A MI L T ON, C ircu it Judge. P lain tiff-a p p ella n t D ar re ll M i l l erworke d fo r fi ve yea rs f ordefendant-a p p el l ee I l l i noi s Dep artm ent o fTra nsport ati on ( I DO T) as a h igh w ay m ain ta in er on a b rid ge c r e w . H e w as fired in J une 200 7 a nd then fi l ed this sui t a l l eging di scr i m i nati on a nd r eta l i ati on in vi ol ati on o fthe A m er icans w i th Disabi l i ti es A ct ( A DA ) , 42 U
. S. C. § 1 2101 et seq
. The di str i ct cour t g ra nted sum m ar y j ud gm ent for IDOT
. W e r eve rs e.2 N o. 09

- 3143 M iller h as p re se n te d ev i d e n c e fro m w h ich a re as on ab le j ury coul d c oncl ud e that I DO T re gar ded hi m as d isa b led because o fhi s fe aro fhei ghts. M i l l erhas al so prese nted evi dence thatwould al l ow a r eas onabl e j ury to fi nd that he co uld per f or m the ess enti alfuncti ons ofhi s j ob w i th re aso nabl e a ccom m odati ons. Final l y, we conclu d e that th er e ar e g enui ne issu es o fmate r i alf ac t co nc erni ng I D O T ’s stated reason s for fi ring M il ler.

I. Rel e vantFa cts an d Pr oc e e di ngs B e c a u s e we r e v i e w a g r a n to fs u mma r y j u d g me n t, we m u st co n sid er th e e vid en c e in t h e l i gh t m os t fa vo ra b le to M i l l er, the no n- m o vingpa rty. W e m us t g i ve hi m the bene fi to fa nyc o nfl i c t s i n the e v i de nc e a nd a nyr eason ab le i nferen ces th at m ight be d raw n in h is f avor. E.g
. , Winsley v. C ookCo unty, 563 F.3d 598 , 602-03 (7th C ir. 2009 ). M il l erbeg an working f orI DO T i n 200 2 a nd was ass i gned to the bri dge crew based i n Dongol a, I l l i noi s, near the southe rn ti p of the sta te. A bri dge te c h ni ci an and fo ur o therhi ghw ay m ai ntai ners were al so ass i gned to the s am e cr ew . A s a hi ghw ay m ai ntai ner ass i gned to a br i dge cr ew , M i l l erwas re sponsibl e fora va ri etyo f ta sk s , ma n y o fwh i c h c o u l d b e p e r f o r me d fr o m t he g r o und. Tho se t as k s i nc l ude d o per at i nga nd r epai ri ng m ai nten an c e v ehi cl es and equipm ent, i ncl ud i ng trucks, pavem ent m ar ki ng equi pm ent, tr acto rs , m owers, sno w p low s, an d j ac k h am m er s; m ain ta in in g la rg e c u lver ts, abutm ents, guar drai l s, and drai nage i nstal l ati ons; sp re ad in g s alt, san d , gra ve l, an d as p h alt ; d ire c tin g t ra fficN o. 09

- 3143 3 dur i ng m aint en an ce o per at i o ns ; cut tingg r as s, wee ds, a nd br us h; r epa i r i ngs i g ns a nd di g g i ngpo stho l es ; cleani ng and m ai ntai ni ng the cr ew ’ s hea dq uart er s; di sposing o f tr ash a nd hi ghw ay debri s; and re cor d-keep in g. S om e o f th e b r i d g e w o r k, o fc o u r s e , r e q u i r e d w o r k i n ga ts o me hei gh t above the gr ound or w ate r. The hi ghw ay m ain ta in er s o n th e b rid ge cr ew als o h ad to c h ip , sea l, and cl ean br i dges, and cl ean a nd pai nt br i dge be ar i ngs. Fr om the outse t o fhi s e m plo ym ent, M il l erhad oc c as ion al d ifficu lty w or kin g fro m h eig h ts , pa rt icu lar ly w hen he work ed i n an unsecur ed envi ro nm en t. W hen he be gan workhe ha d not b ee n for m al l y di agno sed wi tha cr o pho bi a, b utM i l l eri nf o r m ed I DOT a nd the l e a d wo r k e r o f h i s b r i d g e t e a m, S t e v e Ma u r i z i o , th athe had a fearo fso m e hei ghts and that there were a few ta sk s th athe woul d no t be abl e to d o. S pec i fi ca l l y, he in for m e d M au riz io th at h e w ou ld n otbe ab le t o “ w alk a br i dge be am . ” In spi te ofhi s fear, M illerwas abl e t o perf orm work i n an e l evat ed, hydraul i cal l y l i fted “snoo per bucket ” a t hei ghts ofup to 80 feet, and he was ab l e t o c r awlo n th e a r c h o fa b r i d g e o na c a t wa l k

. He esti m at ed th athi s fea rwoul d b e tr i g g er ed an d he w o u l d h a v e p ro b lem s w ith les s t h an th re e p er c en t o f h is j ob descri pti on, bu t eve n then he w as abl e t o com ple te hi s as si g ne d t as k s o n a l lb uto ne o cc as i o n. U nti l ear l y 2006 , I DO T i nfo rm al ly acco m m odated M i l l erbyal l owing othe r m em b er s ofhi s t eam to hand l e those ta sks f orhi m , j ust a s oth er te am m em ber s’ co ndi ti o ns o rl i m i ta ti o ns wer e ac co m m o dat ed. Fore xampl e , Mau r i z i o wa s u nab l e t o we l d. Ano the rc o - w or ker4 N o. 09

- 3143

re fused to r i de i n the snoo pe r b u cket, was not re quir ed to clim b th e a rc h es of an in t e r s t a te br id ge link in g Illino is to K entucky, was unabl e t o sp ra y b ri dges b ecause o f hi s al l er g i es , was no t r equi r ed to mow th e y ar d , a nd w as not re quir ed to r ak e patchingdebr i s. Othercr ew m em b er s w ou ld sw ap as sig n m en ts as n ee d ed to en ab le the c re w to co m ple te those t ask s. In shor t, the evi dence w oul d al l ow a ju ry to fi nd thatthe tea m worke d effectively as a team , taking ad van tage ofe a ch m em ber’s abi l i ti es and accom m odati ng ea ch m em ber ’ s l i m i tat i ons. M i l l erworke d succes sfu l l y a s a hi ghw ay m ai ntai ner on the br i dge cr ew witho ut i nci dent f or sever alye ar s. Then, on M ar ch 10, 20 06, M i l l er’s c re w was w or ki ng o n a bridg e i n Mar i o n, I l l i no i s. The c r ew was i ns ta l l i ng pie ces ofpl ywo od und er neath the br i dge as a prot ecti ve shi el d to prot ect the r oad be l ow fr om f al l i ng pi eces of concr ete
. The cre w ’ s bri dge techni ci an, K en neth Greenl ee, as si gned M i l l erto go up i n a s nooperbucke t fro m w h ich he woul d nai lwood beam s t o the b ri dge f lan ge s a n d th en n ail p lyw oo d sh ee ts to th e b ea m s. T h is as signm en t r equi r ed M i l l ert o unh o o khi s l i fel i ne a nd wor kuns ec ur ed. He c o m pl et ed his as si g ne d t as k, b ut he l ate r fi l ed a gr i evance because he bel i eve d he had been or dered to per f or m an unsafe t ask

. L ess th an tw o w eeks later, on M arch 2 3 , 2 006, M il ler’ s bri dge crew w as changi ng l i ght b ulb s o n a b ri dge that c ro ss es th e M iss iss ip p i R ive r. C re w lea d er M au riz io ass i gned M i l l erand another cre w m em berto “g o ove r th e edg e” of th e br i dge t o c ha ng e th e na vi g at i o n l i g ht b u lb s d i r e c tl y ab o v e th e r i v e r . Mi l l e rh a d t o c l i mb d o wnN o. 09

- 3143 5 a l add ero n the si de ofthe b rid ge to re ach the st ati on th at h eld th e ligh t fix tu re s. So m e o f th e s ta tio n s w o u ld h av e requir ed hi m to st and on a bri dge be am wh i le w ear i ng a l i fel i ne. W hen M i l l erat tem pt ed to change a bulb thatwoul d ha ve r equi r ed hi m t o s ta nd o n a b r i d g e bea m , h e wa s u n ab l e t o c o mpl e t e th e t a s k

. He suffered a pani c at tackand w as tak en byam bul ance t o a h o s p i t a l

. T h a tw a s th e fi r s t, l a s t, a n d o n l y t i me M i l l erwas u nabl e t o com ple te an as si gned tas k b ecause ofhi s fearo fhei ghts. I DO T’s re sponse to that i nci dent i s ce ntra lto wh ether i t r ega rd ed M i l l eras di sabl ed. I DO T plac ed M i l l ero n sic k l e ave an d ordered him to sub m it to a fi tn ess-forduty e xa m i na ti o n. I DOT’ s ex ami ne r, D r. By r o n Go r to n, diagnose d M i l l er w i th acr ophobi a and c oncl ud ed that h e wa s u n fi t t o wo r ka s a h i g h wa y ma i n t a i n e r . An I DO T adm i ni str ato r tol d M i l l er that he needed to r eq u es t n on -oc c u p at ion al d isa b ility st at u s o r h e w ou ld “ge t no thi ng. ” M i l l erm ade the re que st, and I DO T plac ed M i l l ero n non- occ up ati onaldi sabi l i ty sta tus o n J une 23, 2006
. M il ler d escribed his l im itation a s b e in g un able to w ork a t h e i g h t s ab o v e 2 0 t o 2 5 fe e t i n a n e x p o s e d , e x t r e me p os itio n . I D O T d o c u m en ts refle c t t h at, from th e t im e it re c eiv ed D r. G or to n ’s d iag n os is, it tr e a t e d M iller a s if h is c on d itio n im p os ed m u c h m or e e x te n siv e lim its , as if he were unabl e t o w or k above any hei ght g re ate r than 20 fee t. A J une 2 1, 20 06 mem o r an dum ( au th o runkno wn) t o Ang i e R i tte r, a n I DOT p e r s o nn e lma na g e r, e xp l a i ne d, de s c r ib i ng the wo r k r e qu i r e d i n the b r i dg e s e c t i on o f th e b r i d g e c r e w:6 N o. 09

- 3143 W o r k i ngi n the Br i d ge Se ct i o n r equi r es wor k i ng abov e 20’ regularly. 7 5% of H ighw ay M aintain ers w or k ti m e i s spent w or ki ng on bri dge st ructures. Bri dge deck patchi ng o ften r equi re s fulldepth hol es thr o ugh the de c k tha t e xp o s e s the c r e w t o thi s haz

ar d. A ny work i n the snoo per tr uck, o n bear i ngs, pie rs , navi gat i on l i ghts, chi pp i ng co ncre te, et c. re q u ire s s om e e x p os u re to h eig h ts . Tr affic co n tr ol, brush re m ova land yar d m ai ntenance ar e a l so i ncl ud ed i n the H M ’s as signm ents that w oul d not no r m al l y i nc l ude thi s ex po su r e. Howev er, fl ag g i ng o n a b r i dg e o rc l e a r i ngb r us h o n a s t e e p sl o pe coul d al so be per cei ved as a hei ght e xposure. The memo r a nd um c o nc l ud e d tha tthe t r a ffi c s e c t i on an d m ain te n an c e t ea m se c tio n of th e b rid ge cr ew w ou ld al so be o ff

- l i m i ts to som eone unabl e t o w or k a t hei ghts abov e 2 0 feet
. M i l l er fi l ed a g r i ev an ce ch al l en g i ng Dr
. Gor to n’ s con cl usi on th at he was unfi t t o perf or m hi s duti es. On J uly2, 2 0 0 6 , Mi l l e ra l s o fi l e d a r e q u e s tf o rr e a s o n ab l e a c c o mm od ati o n, r eque st i ngtha t he no t be r equi r ed to work “on bri dge be am s a nd o ther e x trem e pl aces o ver20

- 25’

— Bri dge pie rs or ske l eta l str uctures ( fra m es) an d other pla ces

— ex . sn oo p er bu c ke t, et c .,” and that he be tr ansfer re d fr om Dongol a t o the I DO T yard in A n na, I l l i noi s. Inres p on s e , p er so n n el m an ag er R itt er to ld h im , “I’ll te ll you righ t n ow , w e d on ’t g ra n t re q u es ts .” M i l l e rs u p p o r t e d h i s g r i e v a n c e a n d r e q u e s tf o ra c c o mm odati on w i th the ind ependent eva l uati on o fpsychi atr i st Dr
. W i l l i am M in g s, who o pi ne d tha t M i l l erc o ul d c o n-N o. 09

- 3143 7 ti nue to per f or m the functi ons ofh i s j ob i fI DO T provi ded h im w ith t h e s am e re as on ab le a c c om m od at ion th at it had i n the p as t. In N ove m ber20 06, the I l l i noi s Ret i re m ent S yst em r equ ire d M i l l erto be exam i ned by an other psychi atr i st, Dr. Klam ath, wh o al so f ound that M il ler w as fi t for w or k and shou ld be retu rned to w ork wi th wha t e v e rmi no ra c c o mm o da t i o ns mi g htb e r e qu i r e d. M iller’s req u es t fo r ac c om m od at ion w as form ally d en ied on J an u a r y 1 6, 2007
. On M ay 1, 2007, how ever, M i l l er w as or dered back to w or k, and the eve nts of his re turn a re cent ra lto hi s r eta l i ati on cl ai m . M i l l err epor ted to the Ca rbon d al e Di st r i ctNi ne I DOT o ffi ce . The r e he encounter ed A ngi e Ri tte r. R efe rr i ng to Ri tte r, M i l l erthen s a i d t o a n o th e re mp l o y e e : “ R i g h tth e r e i s A r c h e n e my N u m b er 1. I h av e n ev er h i t a w om an . Som et im es I w ou ld li ke to knoc k her teet h ou t.” I D O T cons tru ed M ill e r ’s com m ent a s a thr eat, i nfo rm ed M i l l erthathe ha d been re l i eve d ofduty, and i nstr ucted hi m to go hom e. O n Ju ne 20 , 20 07, M i l l erwas f or m al l y di schar ged f or m aking a thre at ofvi ol ence aga i nst a notherem plo yee and fo r disrup ti ve behavi or . M i l l ergr i eve d his di schar ge, and the par ti es subm i tted t o arbi tr ati on. M i l l erwas f o und t o ha ve e ng ag ed i n “ co nduc t unbe co m i ng ” but w as re turned to w or k, witho ut bac k payo r benefi ts, o n N ove m ber19 , 20 08. M i l l erthen fi l ed th i s s uitunder the A m er i cans with Disabi l i ti es A c t. H e a l l ege d that I DO T had d i scr i m i nated aga i nst hi m by f ai l i ng to pro vi de an ac com m odati on and ter m i nati ng hi m . H e a l so al l ege d that ID O T had i l l e g a l l y r e t a l i a t e d a g a i n s th i m fo rr e q u e s t i n ga n a c c o m-8 N o. 09

- 3143

m odati on. I DO T m ove d fo r sum m ar y j u d gm en t. In re sp on se, M i l l erpre sente d evi dence thatM auri zi o had th reaten ed viol en ce again st his co-w o r k ers on m ore than o ne o ccasi on

— i ncl ud i ng o ne i nci dent i n w hi ch he threat en e d to ki llthree co-w orkers

—but unl i ke M il ler, w as no t d iscipli ne d or term inated for h is behav ior. The d ist ri ct c ourtgr anted I DO T’s m oti on o n both cl ai m s. The di str i ct courtf ound that M i l l er ’ s di scr i m i nati on cl ai m could notsur vi ve because M i l l er ’ s r equeste d acco m m odati on

— rearran ging j ob tasks am ong m em bers ofthe bri dge cr ew

— was unr ea so nabl e, and tha t wor k i ng at hei gh ts a b ove 25 feetwas an es senti alfuncti on o f M i l l er ’ s j ob on the br i dge cr ew . The di str i ct c ourtthen f o und tha t M i l l er ’ s r et al i at i o n c l ai m f ai l ed be ca us e he had no t provi ded suffi ci ent evi dence that I DO T ’s g i ven re as on for t er m in at in g h is e m p loy m en t w as p re te x t u al. W e rev e r s e b e c a us e a l lthr e e o fthe s e fi nd i ng s a r e s ubj ect to genui ne di sputes o fm ate ri alf acts
.
II. D i s cu s s i on A
. “R ega rded as”D isa bled The A DA p rohibi ts disc ri m i nati on o nl y a gainst a
“ qu a l i f i e d ind i v i du a lwi th a di s ab i l i t y . ” 4 2 U. S
. C. § 1 2112 ( a)
. To s uccee d o n h i s AD A cl ai m , M i l l erm ust d e mo n s t r a t e th a th e w a s p r o t e c t e d u n d e rth e A c t
. We firs t d et er m in e w h et h er M iller p re se n te d s u fficie n t e vidence fro m wh i c h a r eas onabl e j ury coul d concl ud e that he wa s a n i n d i v i d u a lwi th a d i s ab i l i t y wi th i n the m eani ng o fthe sta tute.N o. 09

- 3143 9

“ D i s ab i l i t y ” i s d e fi n e d a s ( a ) a p h y s i c a lo rme n t a li mpai r m en t th at su bs ta nt i al l y l i m i ts o ne o r m o r e of th e m aj orl i fe a cti vi ti es ofan ind i vi du al; (b ) a re cor d ofsuch an im p ai rm ent; o r ( c) being r ega rded as havi ng such an i m p airm en t. 42 U
. S. C
. § 12102(2). I n th e d ist r ic t cou rt an d o n a ppea l, M i l l erha s ar g ue d tha t he s at i sfi es the “r ega rded as” pro ng o fthe A D A defi ni ti on o fdi sabi l i ty. To sa ti sfy that pr ong ofthe defini ti on, M i l l erhad to o ffer evi dence i n d ica ti ng tha t IDO T bel i eve d, ri ghtl y o r w ro n gly , th at h e h a d an im p air m en t t h at su b st an tia lly l i m i te d o ne ormor e m aj o rl i fe ac ti vi ti es . 2 9 C. F
. R. § 1 630. 2( l ); see al so C iga n v . Ch ipp ew a Fa lls Sch o o l D ist ., 388 F. 3d 331, 33 5 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05)
. I DO T had to “be l i eve either th at [M il ler ha d ] a su bsta nt ial ly li m iting i m p airm ent that [ he di d] no t hav e o r that [ he had] a substan tially l im iti ng i m p airm en t w he n, i n fa c t, the im p airm ent [ w as] notso l i m i ti ng. ” Su t to n v . U nited A ir Lin es, Inc . , 52 7 U.S
. 47 1, 489 (1 999) ; se e a l so M oorev. J
. B. H unt Tran s p. , Inc . , 221 F.3d 944 , 954 (7th C ir. 2000). M iller a rg u es th at ID O T reg ar d ed h im as su b st an tia lly l i m i ted i n the m ajorl i fe a cti vi ty ofworking. W e hav e st at ed th atwor k i ngc anb e a m aj o rl i fe ac ti vi tyunde rthe ADA. S ee P e t e rs v. Ci ty of M aus t on , 31 1 F
. 3d 835, 84 3 ( 7th Ci r. 20 02)
. A l though the S up re m e Cour t r ese rv ed j ud gm ent o n the questi on, se e Toyo ta M otor M fg. , Ky
. , Inc. v . Wi l l i a ms , 53 4 U.S
. 18 4, 20 0 (2002) , I DO T has no t a ske d u s to re c on sid er ou r p os itio n u n d er th e la w ap p lica b le at the r el evantti m e. To have bee n re gar ded as subst anti al l y l i m i ted i n h i s abi li ty to wor kunde rthe l aw i n e ffec t atthe10 N o. 09

- 3143

Co ng r e s s r e s po nd e d t o the s e a nd sim il a r de c i s i on s by 1 e na c t i ngthe A DA Am e nd m e nt s Ac to f2 0 0 8 , whi c h pr ov i de d, a m o n g m a n y i m p o rt a n t c h a n g es , th a t a p er so n ca n sa tis fy th e “ r e ga r de d a s ” de fi ni t i ono fdi s a bi l i t y i fthe pe r s on“ has b een sub jected to an actio n p ro hib ited un d er th is Ac t be cau se ofanac t ual or pe rc ei ved phy s i c al or m en t al i m pai rm en t w he the r or no t the im p airm en t lim its or is per c e i v ed to lim it a m aj orl i fe a c t i vi t y. ” P ub

. L. 1 1 0

- 3 2 5 § 4 , a m e nd i ng4 2 U. S
. C. § 1 2 1 0 2 (3)( A ). T he am en d m en ts did no t tak e effect u ntil J anu ar y 1 , 20 09 , s o w e con si der he re the s t atut or y a nd r e gu l a tory p r ov i s i on s a s the y s t oo d b e f or e the 2 0 0 8 a m e nd

m en ts. re l evantti m e, M i l l erm u st c om e for w ar d w i th ev i dence th at I DO T re gar ded hi m as l i m i ted i n hi s abi l i ty to perf or m notm er el y o ne par ti cul arj ob but a cl ass o r b ro ad ran ge of j ob s. Se e 2 9 C .F.R . § 16 30 .2(j)(3 )(i); Toyo ta M o tor, 5 3 4 U. S
. a t 2 0 0 ( i f wo r k i ng i s de t e r mi ne d t o be a m aj orl i fe a cti vi ty und erthe A DA , a c laim ant wil lbe re quir ed to sho w “a n i nabi l i ty to w ork in a bro ad ra nge of jobs ”); S u t t on , 527 U
. S. at49 3- 94 ( pla i nti ff s with vis ion im p air m en t w er e n ot“re ga rd ed a s” su b st an tia lly l i m ite d in m aj orl i fe a cti vi ty ofworking be cause they f ai l ed to sho w em plo yer r ega rded thei r i m pai rm ent a s precl ud i ng the m fro m a substa nti alcl ass o fj ob s); Kupt as v. Ci ty of

Gr e e nwood, 39 8 F
. 3d 609, 61 2- 13 ( 7t h C ir. 20 05) ( f ol l owing Toyot a M ot or ); D avi ds on v. M i de l f or tCl i ni c, Lt d. , 133 F. 3d 4 99, 51 1 ( 7th Ci r. 19 98) ( und er“r ega rded as” th e o r y o f d i s ab i l i t y, “ th e e mpl o y e r ’ s p e r c e p t i o n o ft he pla i nti ff’ s inabi l i ty to w or k” m ust have a br eadth co m parable to A D A ’s requ irem en ts for actu al disabili ty). 1N o. 09

- 3143 11 T he A D A regulations ca llf or cons iderat ion of a numbero ff ac to r s i n a ppl y i ngthi s te st, i nc l ud in gthe na tu r e an d s ev er i tyof the pe r ce i ve d i m pai r m en t; the d ura tion or exp ecte d du ration of th e p erceived i m p airm ent; and the perm anent o r l ong- ter m i m pact, orexpecte d perm anent o r l ong- ter m i m pact, o fthe i m pairm en t. 29 C. F
. R. § 1 63 0. 2(j ) ( 3) ( i i )
. Othe rf ac to r s spe ci fi c to the maj o rl i fe a c t i v i t y o fwo r k i ngi nc l ud e the g e o g r a ph i cal ar eat o whi chthe p erso n h as r ea so nabl e ac ce ss ; “ th e j ob fro m wh i ch the i nd i vi du alhas been disqual i fi ed because o fan i m pairm ent, and the num berand ty pes ofj obs uti l i zi ng si m i l artr ai ni ng, kno w l edge, sk i l l s o r ab i l i ti es , wi thin tha t g eo g r aph i ca la r ea, fr o m whi chthe ind ivi d ua l is al so d isqu ali fied becau se of the im p airm ent; ” a s wel las the num berand ty pes o fo therj obs not uti l i zi ng si m i l artr ai ni ng, kno w l edge, sk i l l s o r abi litie s, w i thi n that geo gr aphica larea , fr om wh i ch the i nd i vi du al is a lso d isq u alifie d be c au se of th e im p air m en t. Id. This w as a d em anding sta nd ar d, but the “r ega rded as” prong i s a n i m port ant pr ote cti on that s houl d not be nullifi ed by cre ating an i m possibl y hi gh st andard of pr o o f, a s Con g r es s i ndi ca te d e ven m or e st r o ng l y i n the 2008 am endm ents. Even under the ea rl i erl aw , f or exam ple , i t i s no t nec ess ar y foran e m plo yee to sho w th at th e em p loyer consc iously cond uc ted the s am e sort of fu ll sta tu to ry an aly sis th at a tr ia l j u d ge or jur y w ou ld conduct i n a ca se ofactual i m pai rm ent. A n em plo yer w ho i s i rr ati onal l y a nd i l l ega l l y o ver re ac ting to a p e r c e ive d d isa b ility is u n like ly to ca rry ou t c on sc iou sly the fullA DA anal ysi s.12 N o. 09

- 3143 I fthe e m pl o y ee c o nt en d s h e w as r eg ar ded as s ubs ta ntiall y i m pai r ed i n the maj o rl i fe ac ti vi tyo fwor k i ng, he m ust pre sent evi dence fro m wh i ch i t co uld be i nfe rr ed th at th e empl o y er r eg ar ded hi m as f ac i ng res tr i ct i o ns that w oul d be s i gni fi cant enough t o re str i ct hi s ab ilityto m ee t the r equi re m ents ofa substa nti alcl ass o fo therj obs , beyo nd hi s cur re nt j ob. The r ealp robl em her e i s o ne o f proo f

. H ow bro adlydi d the e m ployer, subj ecti vel y, vi ew the perso n’s i m pai rm ent? The Sup re m e C ourtaddress ed a s i m i l arpro bl em o f su bj ec tiv e k n ow led g e u n d er th e E igh th A m en d m en t in Far m e rv. Br e nna n , 5 1 1 U. S
. 8 2 5 ( 1 9 9 4 )
. T he Ei g hth Am e nd

m ent pr ohibi ts pri son and j ai lo ffi ci al s fro m ac tin g with “del iber ate i nd i ffer ence” to a pri sone r’ s ba si c, m i ni m al ne eds f o rhe al tha nd s afety . In Fa rm er t he S u p r e me Cou r t he l d tha t “de l ibe r at e i ndi ffer ence” re fer s to the p ris on offi ci al ’ s s ubj ecti ve sta te ofm i nd , r equi ring pro of that the pr i son “offi ci alkno w s o f a n d d i sr ega rds a n excess i ve ri sk to i nm ate heal th o r safety ; the offi ci al m ust bo th be aware off acts fro m w h ich the i nfe re nce cou ld be d raw n t h a t a sub stan tial risk ofserious ha rm ex ist s, an d h e m u st als o d ra w th e in fer en c e.” Id

. at83 7. The Fa rm er Court w ent o n to expl ai n, however, that w h et h er th e d efe n d an t o fficia l ha d “t h e re q u isit e k n ow ledge o fa substa nti alr i sk i s a questi on o ff act subj ect to dem onst ra ti on in the usual w ay s, i ncl ud i ng i nfe re nce fro m ci rcum sta nti alev i dence .” Id . at 842. Th us , a j ury can i nfer th at an offici al h a d a ctu al know ledge of a ris k b as ed on ev id en c e t h at th e ris k w as ob vio u s. Id

. Si m i l ar l y here , the i ssue of the em plo yer’s subj ecti ve perce pti on o fthe degre e o fM i l l er ’ s i m pai rm en ts can beN o. 09

- 3143 13 addr es se d thr o ug h c i r cum sta nt i ale vi den ce , i nc l udi ng r e a s o n ab l e i n fe r e n c e s b a s e d o n th e e v i d e n c e o ft h e e mplo yer ’ s per cepti ons ofM i l l er ’ s i m pai rm ents. Quanti tat i ve ev i den ce o fthe l o ca lj o b m ar k et m ay be he l pful, a s th e re gul ati ons i nd i cate , but i s no t ind i spensabl e. I n thi s ca se, M i l l ero ffer ed su ffi ci ent e vi dence fro m w hi ch a re aso na b le j ury coul d conclud e that I DO T re

gar ded him a s pre cl ud ed fro m a substa nti alcl ass o f j obs

. W hen M i l l er bega n w or ki ng f or I DO T as a h igh w ay m ai ntain er on the b ri dge cr ew , and bef or e he w as form all y d iagnose d w ith acrop hob ia, his su p ervisors an d co-w orkers w ere aw are tha t he w a s u na ble to w ork athe i g ht s i n e xpo se d po si ti o ns. D uri ngthe ne xtf o ur y ea r s fr o m hi s hi r e unt il the s pr i ngo f2 00 6, I DOT a nd M i l l er ’ s br i dge cr ew superv i sor s per m i tte d him to swap ta sk s a m on g h is fe llow cr ew m em b e r s s o th at h e c ou ld avo i d the o ccasi onalta sk that he was unabl e t o do. A fterthe M ar ch 23, 20 06 panic att ack abov e the M i ssi ssi pp iRi ver, M i l l er w as f or m al l y diagnose d with acr ophobi a. I DOT i m m edi at ely pr ecl ude d hi m fr o m pe r f o r m i ng an y t askr equi re d ofthe bri dge cr ew , ev en ta sks that co ul d b e per f o r m ed fr o m the ground

— l e ta l o n e fr o m a se cur e, une xpo se d he i g ht

. I DOT f or ce d hi m o n n o noccupati onaldi sa b i l i ty l eave and exagg er ate d the r el at i v e l y mo d e s te ffe c t s o fth e a c r o p h o b i a . E v e n a ft e rt wo psychi atr i sts cl ear ed hi m f orwork w i thout any s i gni fi cant r est ri ctio ns, I DO T continued to pre cl ud e M i l l er fr o m r etur ni ngt o anya nd a l lt as k s per f o r m ed bythe br i dge c r ew. Acco r di ngt o t he r ec o r d, tho se t as k s i ncl ud ed eve ry thi n g fro m the m ai ntenance and opera ti on14 N o. 09

- 3143 of v eh icle s a n d eq u ip m en t t o s p re ad in g s altan d gra ve l, c ut t i nggras s, a nd di r e c t i ngt r a ffi c . In o the rwo r ds , I DOT t r e a t e d Mi l l e ra s th o u g h h e was unab l e t o p e r f o r m a w i de ra nge o fj obs

. A r eas onabl e j ury c ou l d find fro m thi s e vi dence thatI DO T re gar ded M i l l eras di sabl ed by hi s a c ro ph o b i a u nd e rthe l a w b e f o r e the 2 0 0 8 a men dm ents. W e pr oce ed to co nsi der the o therco n te st ed el em en ts of M iller’s A D A d isc rim in at ion cla im s.

B
. Ess e nt i al Fu nc t i on and Reas onab l eAcc om m odat i on T h e A D A req u ire s a n em p loy er to m ak e r e a s o n ab le acco m m odati ons that w i l lal l ow a “ quali fi ed i nd i vi du al w ith a d isa b ility ” t o p er for m th e ess en tia l fu n c tio n s o f h is orherj ob. 42 U .S
. C. § 1 2112 (b) ( 5) ( A )
. I DO T ar gues that w or ki ng a b ove 25 feeti n an e xtre m e o r exposed posi ti on i s a n es se n ti alfuncti on o fm em ber s o fthe bri dge cr ew and that M i l l er ’ s r equeste d accom m odati on was unrea so nabl e. The di st r i ctc o ur t ag r ee d a nd g r an te d sum m ary j ud gm en t forI DO T on thi s ba si s. Vi ew i ng the ev i dence i n the l i g htrea sonab l y mos t f av o r ab l e to M i l l er, a r ea so nabl e j ury coul d find that such workwas not an es senti al functi on o fthe j ob and th at M i l l erwas re questi ng a r ea so nabl e ac co m m o d at i o n: a fte ra l l, he was a sk i ng onl y that he be allo w ed to work as he had w or ked success fully forse ver alye ar s. W e fi rs t co nsi der whether ther e i s a ge nuine dispute of f a c ta s t o w h e th e r wo r k i n gab o v e 2 5 fe e ti n a n e x t r e me posi ti on was an e sse nti alfuncti on o fM i l l er ’ s j ob as a hi ghw ay m ai ntai ner on the br i dge cr ew . W e fi rs t l oo k t oN o. 09

- 3143 15 the federa lr egul ati ons, w h ich i nstr uct us to consi der the fol l owing cate gor i es ofev i dence: (i ) T he e m pl o y er ’ s j udg m en t as t o whi chfunc ti o ns ar e e ss en tia l; (i i) W ritten j o b d escrip tions p rep ared before adv erti si ng o r i nter vi ew i ng appl i cants f orthe j ob; ( i i i ) The am ounto ft i m e spe nto n the j o b per f o r m i ng th e func ti o n; ( i v) The conse que nc es o fno t r equi r i ngthe i nc um be nt to pe r f o r m the func ti o n; ( v) The te rm s o fa col l ecti ve bar gaini ng ag re em ent; ( vi ) The wor ke xpe r i en ce o fpa sti nc um be nt s i n the j ob; and/o r (vii) T h e c u rre n t w or k e x p er ien c e o f inc u m b en ts in si m i l arj obs

. S ee 2 9 C. F
. R. § 1 63 0. 2( n) ( 3)
. Underthi s st an dar d, the e mpl o y e r ’ s j ud g men ti s a n i mpo r t a ntf a c t o r, b uti ti s n ot contr ol l i ng. U nd erf acto rs ( vi ) and (vi i ) , we al so l oo k t o evi dence ofth e em p l oye r’ s a ctualprac ti ces i n the w or kpla ce. W e a re con fid en t that s om e hi gh work i n exposed o r ex tr em e posi ti ons i s a n ess enti alfuncti on o fthe bri dge c r e w a s a wh o l e . I DO T wo u l d h a v e u s t a k e th a tp o i nt a st ep fur th ert o fi nd tha t an y i ndi vi duala ss i gn ed t o the bri dge cr ew had to be abl e t o perf or m each and ever y t ask o fthe e nt i r e br i dge c r ew. Tha t woul d r equir e fi ndi ng that eve ry tas k re quir ed of the bri dge cre w as a w h ole wa s an e s s e nt i a lt a s ko fe a c h b r i dg e c r e w memb e r . On16 N o. 09

- 3143 thi s r eco rd, we cannot m ake th at find i ng as a m att ero f law

. P lain tiff ha s com e forw ar d w ith su b st an ti a l ev id en c e s h ow in g t h at h is b rid g e c re w d id n otac tu ally wo r k t h a twa y . T h e b r i d g e c r e w w o r k e d a s a t e a m. No one perso n w as ass ign ed p er m anentl y t o any o ne ta sk. Altho ug h indi vi dualmem be r s o fthe t ea m di d v ar i o us ta sks as ne ede d, the r e was no r equi r ementtha t th e bri dge cr ew m em ber s r ota te fro m ta sk to tas k i n an o rg ani zed, r outi ne f ashi on, such th at it w as necess ar y for a n y o n e me mb e r o f th e b r i d g e c r e w t o b e a b l e t o do eve ryta sk ofthe bri dge cr ew as a w hol e. M i l l erh as p resente d evi dence that, atl eas t pr i orto M ar ch2 3, 2 00 6, the t ea m a cc o m m o dat ed th e va r i o us skil l s, abi l i ti es, and l i m i tat i ons ofthe i nd i vi du alte am m em ber s byo rg an izin g i tse l facc or ding to thos e s ki l l s, ab i l i ti es , a nd l i m i ta ti o ns . M au r i zi o c o ul d notwel d, s o the o th e rme mb e r s d i d th e w e l d i n gw h e n i tw a s r e q u i r e d. A notherco - w or kerr efused to r i de i n th e sn oo per bucket, so thos e task s, wh en nee ded , went to othe rs . Thi s was als o t ru e o f br id ge sp ra yin g, ya rd m ow in g, an d d eb ris ra king f ora cre w m em berwith a l l er gi es. As i n o th e r“ t e a m” e n v i r o nme n t s , th e i n d i v i d u a lme mb er s too k on ta sk s ac c or d in g to th eir c ap ac itie s an d a b i l iti es . Her e, a r easo nabl e f ac t- fi nde rwoul d ha ve t o c o nc lu d e that som e memb e r s o f the b r i dg e c r e w ha d t o be able t o wor ka t he i g ht s i n e xpo se d o re xt r eme po si ti o ns so that the bri dge crew

— as a u n it

— coul d do i ts j ob, j ust a s s o me memb e r s o f the c r e w ha d t o b e abl e t o w el d, ri de i n the sn oo p er bucke t, spra y, m ow, and rak e. That concl usi on does notm ean that the f act- fi nd erwould beN o. 09

- 3143 17

re quir ed to co ncl ud e that each m em bero fthe bri dge c re w had to be abl e t o do e ve ry ta skr equi r ed o fthe enti re te am . In term s o fthe re gul ati on, the evi dence of ac tu ale xpe r i en ce o fpa sta nd pr es en t in cumbe nt s i n the j ob a nd s i mi l a r j o b s c o nfl i c t s wi th the e mpl o y e r ’ s j ud gm en t ab o utwhi chfun cti o ns a r e es se nt i al

. S ee 2 9 C. F
. R. § 1 63 0.2 (n )(3) . On th is re c or d , a rea s on ab le jur y c ou ld fi n d th a tw o r k i n ga th e i g h t s i n a n e x p o s e d o re x t r e me posi ti on was notan e ss en ti alfuncti on f orM i l l eras an i n d i v i d u a lme mb e ro fth e b r i d g e c r e w. F r o m thi s sa m e ev i den ce , a r ea so nabl e j ur y c ou ld fi nd th at M i l l er ’ s r equest f oracc om m odati on

— that othe r m em ber s o fhi s t eam subst i tute f orhi m wh en a tas k r equi r ed wor k i ngabo ve 25 fee t i n a n e xpo se d o re xtr em e pos i ti on

— w as re aso nabl e. The st atute pro vi des th atthe t er m “ r ea so nabl e ac co m m o dat i o n” may i nclud e “j o b restru ctu ring, p art-tim e or m od ified w ork sc h e d u les , rea ss ign m en t t o a va c an t p os itio n, ac q u isitio n or m od ifica tio n of eq u ip m en t o r d ev ice s, ap p ro p riat e adj us tmento r m o di fi ca ti o ns o fe xa m i na ti o ns , t r aini ng m ater i al s o rpo l i ci es , the pr o vi si o n o fqua l i fi ed r ea ders ori nter prete rs , and other si m i l aracc om m odati ons f or ind ivi d ua ls w ith d isabil iti es.” 42 U
. S. C
. § 12111(9)(B). T h e A DA does notgi ve em plo yer s unfett er ed dis cre ti on t o deci de w hat i s r eas onabl e. The la w requi re s a n em plo yerto r ethi n k i ts prefer re d practi ces ores tabl i shed me th o d s o fo p e r a t i o n. E mp l o y e r s mu s t, a ta min i mu m, consi der pos sibl e m odi fi cati ons ofj obs , pro cesses , o r tas ks so as to al l ow an em ployee with a di sabi l i ty to w or k, ev en wh er e e stabl i shed pract i c es or m etho ds see m18 N o. 09

- 3143 to be the m osteffi ci ent or serv e o ther w i se l egi ti m ate p u rp os es in t h e w or kp lac e. Se e, e. g., Van de Zand e v. State o f Wi s c o n s i n Dep ’ to

f A d mi n i s t r at i on , 44 F. 3d 538, 54 2 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 5) ( “I t i s pl ain e no ug h wha t ‘ ac co m m o dat i o n’ m ea ns . The e m pl o y erm us t be w i l l i ngto co ns i dermaking ch an g es i n i ts o r di na r y wor kr ul es , f ac i l i ti es , t er m s, a nd condi ti ons i n or der t o enabl e a di sabl ed i nd i vidual to w ork. ”). W hen cons i deri ng o therwork envi ro nm ents, w e have u p h e l d d e t e r m i n a t i o n s th a tr e q u e s t s f o ra “ h e l p e r ” e mpl o y ee a nd r eque st s to r o ta te wor kt as k s wer e unr ea so na b l e. Fo r in st an c e, inLe nke rv. M e t hodis tHos pi t al , 21 0 F.3 d 79 2 (7 th C ir. 20 00 ), a n u rs e w ith m u ltip le s c ler os is w as u na ble to l ift pa tients
. H e requ ested that he be p erm i tt ed to us e as si st i ve dev i ce s o r ca l l f o r he l p w he n he was unabl e to l i ft a p ati en t. On r ev i ew, we uphe l d the j u r y ’ s v e r d i c ti n f a v o ro fth e e mpl o y e r . We f o u nd su ffici en t evide nc e in the record from w hich the j ury co ul d r ea so nabl y fi nd ( a) that a ss i st i ve de vi ce s m i g ht h e l p t o l i ft a p a t i e n t o u t o f b e d b u t wo u l d n o th e l p a pati ent wal k dow n the hal lo r to the b athr oo m , and ( b) that othe r sta ffwould not be abl e to a ss i st at al lti m es, parti cul ar l y in a s taffsho rt ag e or a hospi talem er gency . Se e id

. at79 6- 97. I n a notherc as e, we uphe l d s um m ary j udg m en t aga i nst a n equi pm en t o perat orwh o suffer ed a s houl der i nj ury and w as no l onge r abl e t o l i ft o r car ryanythi ng o ver fi fty pound s. S ee Pet e rs v. Ci ty of M aus t on , 311 F.3 d 83 5, 840 ( 7th Ci r. 20 02)
. T h at em plo yee al so re quested that hi s em p loy erper m i t a notherem plo yee to hel p him withN o. 09

- 3143 19 th e l i ftingr equi r ement s of his j o b. W e f o und tha t th e r eque stwas unr ea so nabl e be ca us e l i ftinga nd ca r r y i ng w er e e sse nti alfuncti ons ofhi s j ob as an equi pm ent o perator
. M aking the acc om m odati on w oul d have r equi re d ano th erpe r so n t o pe r f o r m a n e ss en ti alfunc ti o n o fthe em plo yee ’ s j ob. S ee id

. at84 5; se e a l so M il le r v. Il li nois D epar t m e ntof

Cor r e ct i ons , 10 7 F
. 3d 483, 48 5 ( 7th Ci r. 19 97) (“i fa n e m pl o y erha s a l eg i ti m at e r ea so n fo rs pec i fy i ng m ult i ple duti es f ora parti cul arj ob clas sifica ti on, duti es the o ccupant ofthe posi ti on i s e xpected to r ota te thro ugh, a disabl ed em p loy ee w i l lnotbe quali fi ed f or the pos i ti on unl ess he c an per f or m enough ofthes e duti es to enabl e a j u dgm ent that he can per f or m i ts e s s e nt i al d u tie s” ) (em p h as is in orig in al); Cochr um v . O l d Be n Coal Co. , 1 0 2 F
. 3 d 9 0 8 , 9 1 2 ( 7 th C i r . 1 9 9 6 ) ( h o l d i n gth a te mp loyee’s r eq ue st th at em p loyer hire a help er to perform ess enti alfuncti on was unrea sonab l e; “ h iri ng a hel per to p er form the ove rhea d w or k would m ean the hel per w oul d de f acto per f or m [ the e m plo yee ’s] j ob. W e ca nnot agr ee that [ the em plo yee ] w oul d b e perf or m i ng th e essen tial fun ctions of his j ob w ith a help er. ”). These ca ses te ach tha t t askr eas si gnm ents withi n a j ob can be u n reaso nabl e in si tuati ons w here the re ass i gned tas k i s a n ess enti alfuncti on o fthe j ob. In thos e s i tuati ons, re ass i gn m ent o r del ega ti on o fthe tas k would e quate, essen tially, to reassignm en t or delegation of th e j ob itself

. W h atse ts th is c as e a p ar t fro m th os e e ar lier c as es is M i l l er ’ s evi dence that i t w as i n f act the nor m al cours e f ori nd i vi du alm em ber s o fthe bri dge cr ew to subst i tute an d rea ss ign ta sk s a m on g t h em se lve s a c c or d i n g t o in d i-20 N o. 09

- 3143

W e re cognize that i fm ostor al l m em bers ofa bri d ge cre w 2 ha d acro p ho b ia like M iller ’s, the cre w cou ld no t pe rform all ofi t s e s s en t i al duties. Ifan d when s uc h a n e xt re m e c as e m i ght arise, w e are con fiden t that th e law w ou ld acco m m od ate a n e mpl o y e r’ s n e e d t o g e ti t s wo r k d o n e . I n th i s c a s e , h o w- (co n tin u ed ...) vi du alabi l i ti es, p re ferences, and l i m i tat i ons. M i l l er ’ s r equest forr eas onabl e a ccom m odati on di d not a sk ID O T to do a ny th i ngi t was no t al r ea dy do i ng ( o r, a t l ea st, a ny th i ng i t had notbee n doi ng up unti lM ar ch 200 6)
. The re cor d on sum m ar y j ud gm ent, ta ke n i n the l i ght r eas onabl y m ost f avo rab le to M i l l er, does notco m pel a fi nd i ng tha t I DO T re quir ed eve ryem ploye e work i ng as a hi ghw ay m ai ntai ner on a br i dge cr ew to be abl e t o w or k in an exposed o r extr em e pos i ti on above 25 feeti n the ai r or th atb eing abl e to do s o was a n e ss en ti alfunc ti o n o fthe j ob. To the contr ar y, the re cor d c onfi rm s that i t w as a re gul aro ccu rrence f ori nd i vi du al s o n the bri dge te am to shar e a nd swap task s a ccor ding to t h eiri nd i vi du al cap ac itie s, abi l i ti es, and l i m i tat i ons. M i l l er ’ s r equest that tas k a ssi gnm ents be a dj usted am ong th e bri dge cr ew m em ber s s o that h e w oul d not be co nfr onte d w i th a tas k re quir in g hi m to work abov e 2 5 feeti n an e xposed or extr em e pos i ti on di d no t am ount t o a r equest that an o th ermem ber of the t ea m pe r f o r m a n e ss en ti al, no ndel egabl e tas k. A j ury shoul d b e perm i tte d t o c on sid er M iller’s ac tu al w or k e n v i ro n m en t a n d ID O T ’s p as t fle x ib i l i t y i n d e l e g a t i n gt a s k s a mo n g s tth e b r i dg e t e a m m e mber s in deci ding w hetherM i l l er ’ s r equest f oracc om m odati on was r eas onabl e. 2N o. 09

- 3143 21

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 2 ever, the evid en ce s how ing that plai nti ffhad actuall y been acco m m od ated as he re qu ested s ho w s that th e em p loy er is note nt i t l ed t o s um m ar y j udgm en tonthi s the or y. C
. Ret al i at i on The dist ri ct cour t al so gr anted sum m ar y j ud gm ent fo r I D O T o n Mi l l e r ’ s A D A r e t a l i a t i o n c l a i m. T o a v o i d s u mm ar y jud gm ent o n hi s r eta l i ati on cl ai m , M i l l erm ust offerev i dence thathe e ngage d i n prot ecte d a cti vi ty, that he w as pe r f o r mi ngh i s j o b s a t i s f a c t o r i l y, a nd tha th e was sin gle d ou t fo r an ad ve rs e e m p loy m en t a c tio n th at sim il ar l y s i tuat ed em plo yee s who did notenga ge i n protect ed acti vi ty did not suffer . S ee Sq ui b b v. M e m or i al M edic a l C enter, 49 7 F
. 3d 775, 78 8 ( 7th Ci r . 2007); St onev. Ci tyo f In d i a n a p o l i s Pu b l i cUt i l i t i e s Di v. , 2 81 F. 3d 640, 64 4 ( 7th Ci r. 20 02) . T h e di str i ct c ourtf ound that M i l l er f ai l ed to de m o ns tr at e th atI DOT’ s state d r ea so n fo rfi r i ng h im

— the a l l ege d thre at aga i nst Ri tte r w hen he r etur ned to w ork

— w as prete xtual

. H er e, to o, we re ver se. I n re vi ew i ng the ev id en c e, we cannot seco nd

- guess I DO T ’s em plo ym ent deci si ons to the e xtent that they w er e i nnocentl y unw i se or unfai r. Bu t M iller has prese nted suffi ci ent evid ence fro m wh i ch a fi nd ero ff act coul d genui nel y c al li nto questi on I D O T ’s honesty. Fi rs t, a r ea so nabl e j ur y c o ul d fi nd tha t M i l l er ’ s st at ement ab ou t R itt er w as n ota “t h re at ” a t a ll, o r t h a t e ve n if ID O T p ro p er ly c on st ru ed it as su c h, i ts d e c i s i o n to te rm ina te M il ler w as a d isin g en uo us overreaction to j us tify d ism iss al of a n an n oy in g e m p loy ee w h o a ss er te d h is ri ghts und erthe A DA
. M i l l er pres ented e vi dence that22 N o. 09

- 3143

A to r a l a r g u m e n t, d e f e n se c o u n se l su g g e st e d th a tID O T ’s 3 m an ag em en t ha d no t k no w n of M au rizio ’ s v iolen t ou tb u rst, so tha t its failure to tak e actio n a g ain st M au r i z i o c an no t be ev idence ofpr et ext. H ow ever, thati ss ue w as not rai se d b ef ore the d istrict cou rt on sum m ary jud g m en t an d is no t oth erw ise r e f l e c t e d i n th e r e c o r d

. O n r e ma n d , th e p a r t i e s w i l l h a ve the op p or tu nity to p resen t ev id en ce on tha t po int.

5- 10- 11 M auri zi o hi m sel fhad had a ge n uine l y v i ol ent work pla ce ou tb u rs t but w as not ter m i nated, and ye t M i l l erwas ter m i nated f ora m u c h m i l der c om m ent o n hi s fi rs t day back at w or k. A l so, Rit ter ’ s com m ent to M i l l er th at 3 “w e d on’ t g ra nt r equests ” co uld be co nstr ued by a r easonab l e j ury as sho w i ng a gener alhos ti l i ty to re quests for acc om m od ation u nd er the A D A
. Th ere is m ore here th an “m er e t e m p or al p ro x im ity .” C f. St one, 28 1 F
. 3d at 644) ( noting tha t “ m er e t em pora lpro xi m i ty between the pr ote cted co nd uct and the al l ege d ly retal i ato ryact “w ill rare ly b e s u fficie n t in an d of it s e l f to cr ea te a tr iab le i ssue” )
. The co m bi nati on o fthe am bi guity ofthe ass er ted th r ea t, the r es pons e t o M au r i zi o ’ s vi o l en t o utbur st, the ho st i l i ty to war d M i l l er ’ s r eque st f o raccom m o dat i o n, and the t i m i ng pro vi de d suffi ci ent e vi dence to per m i t a reason able trier of f act to infer prete xt a nd retali atory in te n t. The questi on m ust be deci ded attr i alr atherthan on s um m ar y j ud gm ent. R EV ER S ED AN D R EMAND ED .