### In the 

# United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit

____________________ No. 21-2752

L ARRY T ATE , Plaintiff -Appellant

,

v.

T HOMAS J. D ART , et al.

, Defendant s-Appellees

.

____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division

.

No. 1:17

- cv

- 08888 — John F. Kness

, Judge

.

____________________

A RGUED S EPTEMBER 9, 2022

— D ECIDED O CTOBER 25, 2022

____________________

Before R OVNER , H AMILTON , and S CUDDER , Circuit Judges

.
H AMILTON , Circuit Judge

. Plaintiff

- appellant Larry Tate has worked for the Sheriff of Cook County in the Department ofCorrections since 2007. In his third year as a correctional officer, Tate suffered a back injury. He returned to work und er medical restrictions that required him to “avoid situations inwhich there is a significant chance of violence or conflict.” After Tate was promoted to sergeant, the Sheriff’s Office agreed to accommodate this medical restriction by allowing him to2 No. 21-2752

work in the Classification Unit, where the possibility of violence or physical conflict was relatively remote.
But when Tate sought a promotion to lieutenant, he wastold that the Sheriff could not accommodate him in that position. Correctional lieutenants had to be “able to manage and [defuse] regular, violent situations involving inmates.” SinceTate’s medical restrictions would prevent him from performing this essential function, the Sheriff’s Department said, he would remain a sergeant. Tate sued for alleged violations of
the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Illinois Human Rights Act. On cross

- motions for summary judgment, the district court found that the undisputed facts show that responding to inmate violence in emergencies is an essential function for lieutenants, so Tate was unable to perform the essential functions of the job he sought. Tate v. Dart , 2021 WL 3737728 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 24, 2021). Although the district court’s opinion was too deferential to the employer’s views about which job functions are essential, we agree with the court’s bottom line
and affirm.

I. Facts for Summary Judgment
These facts are undisputed or reflect the evidence in thelight reasonably most favorable to Tate, against whom summary judgment was granted. The Cook County Sheriff’s Office hired Tate as a correctional officer in October 2007. Three years later, after li fting some trays at work, Tate felt some pain in his back. He had to take time off, and when he returned towork, healthcare providers had placed him on several medical restrictions. He could not lift more than 60 pounds and could not stand or walk for pro longed periods, and he needed to change his position frequently and was to “avoid situations in which there is a significant chance of violence or conflict.”No. 21-2752 3

Tate continued to work under these medical restrictions after he was promoted to sergeant in 2012. But in 2014, Tate sued the Sheriff’s Office under the Americans with Disabilities Act,alleging discrimination and failure to accommodate. The parties settled. The settlement agreement provided that Tate would remain a sergeant and continue working in the Classification Unit. The settlement addressed the possibility of a future promotion to lieutenant. Tate could apply for another assignment or seek promotion to lieutenant in the future if he could “perform the essential functions of the assignment or posi tion.”
In 2015 Tate sought promotion to lieutenant. He passedthe promotional exam and was certified as eligible for promotion. On December 9, 2016, Tate was provisionally promoted to lieutenant. Like all newly promoted lieutenants, Tate was to be subject to a one

- year probationary period.
That same day, however, Tate met with Human ResourcesOfficer Rebecca Reierson and ADA Compliance Officer Sabrina Rivero

- Canchola, who told him that “his promotion was contingent on him obtaining medical clearance from h is physician.” They told Tate that lieutenants had to be able to handle disruptive behavior and respond to emergency situations. These were “essential functions,” a critical concept under theADA. When Tate’s doctor declined to modify his medical restricti ons, Reierson told Tate that it would not be possible toaccommodate him as a lieutenant. Lieutenants play an “important and crucial role ... in maintaining the safety and security of [the] jail,” she said, and they “frequently respond to incidents that requ ire use of force.” Lieutenants must be “able to manage situations that involve both conflict and violence.” Although Tate was encouraged to suggest accommodations4 No. 21-2752

that might “enable [him] to perform the essential functions” of a lieutenant, Reierson cautio ned him that “avoidance of situations involving violence or conflict is not a reasonable accommodation.”

About two weeks later, Tate submitted his written ADA accommodation request. He described his lifting, standing, and walking restrictions and noted tha t he was to “avoid situations involving significant chance of violence.” To accommodate these restrictions, Tate suggested “avoid[ing] frequent inmate contact” through assignment to “minimum inmate areas,” including classification, laundry, external operat ions, warehouse, and kitchen. Reierson denied this request: “Violent situations involving inmates arise on a daily basis,”and lieutenants must be “able to respond to emergency situations and [defuse] disruptive behavior with de

- escalation or
use of force. ” Even in areas like “the kitchen, laundry, or external operations,” lieutenants “interact[] with inmates who are assigned to work in those areas” and are “still required torespond to emergency situations and incidents involving inmates that arise ... anywh ere within the Division ... no matterhow frequent or infrequent they occur.” Because Tate’s medical restrictions meant he would be unable to handle that essential function as a lieutenant, the Sheriff’s Office returned Tate to the rank of sergeant.

II. Proc edural History
Tate filed charges of discrimination with both the Illinois Department of Human Rights and the Equal EmploymentOpportunity Commission. The EEOC issued a right to sue letter, and Tate filed this lawsuit alleging disability discrimination and failure to accommodate under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., and in violation ofNo. 21-2752 5

the Illinois Human Rights Act, 775 ILCS 5/1

- 101 et seq. The parties filed cross

- motions for summary judgment. The district court granted summa ry judgment to the defendants. Tate appeals the denial of his claims under the ADA and the IHRA.Because Illinois courts analyze IHRA claims under a framework that is practically indistinguishable from the ADA framework, we focus on the federal ADA claims. See Fox v. Adams & Assocs., Inc. , 2020 IL App (1st) 182470, 445 Ill. Dec. 342, 166 N.E.3d 772, 783–88 (2020).

III. Analysis

A. Legal Standard
We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, without deference to the district court, giving t he

non

- moving party the benefit of conflicts in the evidence and
reasonable inferences that could be drawn from the evidence. Majors v. General Electric Co. , 714 F.3d 527, 532 (7th Cir. 2013).When a motion for summary judgment asserts that the opposing pa rty cannot meet his burden of proof on a decisive issue,the opposing party must come forward with evidence sufficient to permit a finding in his favor that there is a genuine dispute of material fact. Id.

B. “Essential Functions” under the ADA

The central issue in this appeal is whether there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether being able to respond in emergencies to inmate violence is an “essential function” of the correctional lieutenant position at the Cook County Department of Correctio ns. The ADA prohibits discrimination, including denial of promotions, against a “qualified individual on the basis of disability.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). A qualified individual is6 No. 21-2752

someone who, “with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essen tial functions of the employment position.” 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8). An employer must therefore makereasonable accommodations that will allow a qualified individual to perform the essential functions of his or her job. Miller v. Illinois Dep’t of Transp. , 643 F.3d 190, 197 (7th Cir. 2011); 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A).
The Sheriff’s Office argues, and the district court agreed,that the ability to respond physically to emergencies involving inmate violence is an “essential function” for all lieutenants in the department, and that Tate’s medical restrictions prevent him from performing that essential function. Tate’s principal argument is that the ability to respond physically isnot, as a matter of fact, a truly essential function of all lieutenant jobs. We focus first on that issue. Tate also contends that his medical restrictions do not actually mean that he could not respond physically to inmate violence in an emergency. We conclude by addressing that contention.
Whether responding to violent emergencies is an essential function of the lieutenant position “is a factual question, not a question of law.” Brown v. Smith , 827 F.3d 609, 613 (7th Cir.2016) (emphasis in original). As the district court correctly observed, to answer that question, “we consider the e mployer’s judgment, including written job descriptions, as evidence.” Tonyan v. Dunham’s Athleisure Corp. , 966 F.3d 681, 687 (7th Cir.2020). We also “examine the impact of not requiring the employee to perform the function.” Vargas v. DeJoy

, 980 F.3d 1184, 1188 (7th Cir. 2020).
The statutory text of the ADA provides little guidance on how to determine whether a particular job function isNo. 21-2752 7

essential or not, but regulations implementing the ADA identify seven non

- exclusive categories of evidence to consider:

(i) The employer’s judgment as to which functions are essential;

(ii) Written job descriptions prepared before advertising or interviewing applicants for the job;

(iii) The amount of time spent on the job performing the function;

(iv) The consequences of not requiring the incumbent to perform the function;

(v) The terms of a collective bargaining agreement;

(vi) The work experience of past incumbents in the job; and/or

(vii) The current work experience of incumbents in similar jobs.

29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3). 1

1 On appeal, the Sheriff asserts incorrectly that this court considersthis EEOC regulation without deference and “solely as persuasive authority.” For support, the Sheriff’s brief quoted portions of an opinion of this court that were later amended, Bilinsky v. American Airlines, Inc. , 928 F.3d 565 (7th Cir. 2019). Appellees’ Br. at 14. In our research, we found that, at the time of oral argument, Westlaw provided the amended version of Bilinsky , while Lexis provided only the unamended version, so we can unde rstand how a conscientious lawyer could make that mistake. The
amended version of Bilinsky is precedential; the original version is not. In any event, we have repeatedly relied on this EEOC regulation in deciding
essential

- function questions. E.g., Shell v. Smith , 789 F.3d 715, 717

– 18 (7th Cir. 2015); Stern v. St. Anthony’s Health Ctr. , 788 F.3d 276, 285

– 86 (7th Cir.8 No. 21-2752

The employer’s judgment is a factor, and an important one, but it is not necessarily decisive. Our cases have often noted that some degree of deference is appropriate, but anemployer’s stated judgments about which functions are essential may or may not be consistent with the job as actuallyperformed, or perhaps even as set forth in written job descriptions. See Mlsna v. Union Pacific R.R. Co. , 975 F.3d 629, 634 (7th Cir. 2020) (reversing summary judgment for employer: “‘We usually do not “second

- guess the employer ’ s judgment in describing the essential requirements for the job.” But this deference is not unqualified.’”), quoting Tonyan , 966 F.3d at 687 (affirming summary judgment for employer); Miller , 643 F.3d at 198 (“the employer’s judgment is an important factor, but it is not controlling”).
Careful attention to the regulation’s other evidentiary factors can counter the employer’s judgment. See Tonyan , 966 F.3d at 688 (reminding that we must “also look to the reality

on t he ground” and listing the other EEOC categories of evidence); Shell , 789 F.3d at 718 (reversing summary judgment for employer: “The district court, in giving deference to the City’s position, did not consider any of the other § 1630.2(n) factors.”); Mille r , 643 F.3d at 198 (reversing summary judgment for employer after juxtaposing the “employer’s judgment” with “the employer’s actual practices in the workplace”).

2015); Hoppe v. Lewis Univ. , 692 F.3d 833, 839 (7th Cir. 2012); Feldman v. Olin Corp. , 692 F.3d 748, 755 (7th Cir. 2012); Brown v. Illinois Ce nt. R.R. Co.

, 254 F.3d 654, 663 n.8 (7th Cir. 2001); Lenker v. Methodist Hosp. , 210 F.3d 792, 796 (7th Cir. 2000)

.No. 21-2752 9

1. Employer’s Judgment
Here, the Sheriff argues that the “correctional lieutenant’s
essential functions include responding to emergency situations and defusing violence.” This position has not changed since Tate first requested an accommodation based on his medical restrictions. In December 2016, Reierson told Tate that “it is imperative that Lieu tenants are able [to] respond to emergency situations and [defuse] disruptive behavior with
de

- escalation or use of force. The ability of a lieutenant to respond to dangerous situations is essential to maintaining the safety and security of the jail as wel l as those working in it.” In short, the Sheriff maintains, “it is an essential function of the job.”

2. Written Job Description
The job description here supports finding that responding physically to violent emergencies is an “essential function” of
the l ieutenant position. According to the description, a “Lieutenant ensures the safety and security of inmates, staff, and citizens through the enforcement of proper detention policiesand procedures.” And “Key Responsibilities and Duties” include “oversee[ing] the receipt, care, and release of inmatesand their belongings, [e]nforc[ing] Cook County Sheriff’s Office and Department of Corrections policies and procedures,”defusing “and control[ling] disruptive behavior by appropriate verbal orders and/or appropr iate use of physical force,”and “[r]espond[ing] to emergency situations ... such as medical, fire, [and] security.” 2

2 Tate contends that the job description is not wholly reliable because it does not accurately describe actual practices. In support, Tate ci tes testimony from Kieran Mundt, c hief s teward for the c orrectional l ieutenants.10 No. 21-2752

Here, the job description reinforces the Sheriff’s judgment. Lieutenants are always ensuring safety through enforcement, and although some assignments involve less frequent need for the use of physical force, none of the assignments require
no use of force.

3. Time Spent Performing the Function and Emergency Responses
As a general rule, the more time an employee spends performing a function, the more essential the function is likely to be. There are exceptions, however, particularly where the jobincludes emergency response duties. A function that is performed only rarely may still be essential. See Vargas , 980 F.3d at 1189 (affirming summary judgment for employer: “an essential function need not encompass the majority of an employee’s time, or even a significant quantity of time, to be essential”), quoting Basith v. Cook County , 241 F.3d 919, 929 (7th Cir. 2001) (affirming summary judgment for employer).
The special feature of this case is the role of correctionallieutenants in responding to emergencies, including those involving inmate violence. The crux of Tate’s argument is that responding to violent emergencies is not an essential functio n for all correctional lieutenants because some assignments only rarely require the use of physical force. Tate argues thatthere is less need to respond to violent emergencies as a lieutenant because, as he sees it, “the higher up in rank that you go, the less inmate contact that you” have. Retired Lieutenant

Because Mundt’s testimony speaks less to the written job description and more to “the employer’s actual practices in the workplace,” see Miller , 643 F.3d at 198, we address his testimony under the EEOC’s third and sixth categories of evidence

.No. 21-2752 11

Duane Collins and current Lieutenant Thomas Cintron corroborated this view. Correctional jobs become “less physical”as one moves up in the chain of command. And some lieutenants have rarely, if ever, actually needed to respond with physical force to counter inmate violence.
The relative frequency with which a lieutenant is requiredto use physical force depends in part on a lieutenant’s particular assignment. Chief s teward for the correctional lieute nants Kieran Mundt testified that the particular assignment determines how often a lieutenant needs to defuse and “control disruptive behavior” through the “use of physical force.” It “really depends on where you work.” An assignment to Laundry or Records, for example, will likely require less useof force. Lieutenant Angela Lewis testified that, as a lieutenant assigned to External Operations and Records, she never needed to respond to emergency situations or to defuse and control disruptive behavior with physical force. And Lieutenant Collins testified that he had never fought with an inmate
when he worked in Records.

If the essential

- function inquiry were about probabilities, Tate would have a stronger argument. Yet we cannot lose sight of the need for e mergency responses in law enforcement and public safety agencies like the Corrections Department of the Cook County Sheriff. As the district court observed, many police officers never discharge their service weapons in theline of duty, but that “does not mean that weapons proficiency for all is optional.” Or similarly, as we have noted,while a firefighter “may not often have to carry an unconscious adult from a burning building, failing to require that he ably perform this function when called upon would run counter to his duty to public safety.” Vargas

, 980 F.3d at 1189.12 No. 21-2752

Even Chief Steward Mundt confirmed that, assignments aside, a lieutenant always “[e]nforces Cook County Sheriff’sOffice and Department of Corrections policies and procedures” and “ensure s the safety and security of inmates, staff,and citizens through the enforcement of proper detention policies and procedures.” So while Tate has offered evidence that the right assignment would mean that he might never need to engage physically with any v iolent inmates, that evidence
does not answer whether being able to do so is an “essential
function” for correctional lieutenants.

4. The Consequences of Not Requiring Performance of the
Function
Under the ADA regulation on essential functions, we also

e xamine “the impact of not requiring the employee to perform the function.” Vargas , 980 F.3d at 1188, citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3)(iv). Here, the consequences of not requiring Tate to respond with physical force in violent emergencies could be innocuous, but they could also be grave.
Tate argues that our case law shows that not every employee must always be able to perform every job function. That point is certainly correct as a general rule, and it means that an employer who might prefer that employees b e interchangeable may need to bend that preference to accommodate an employee with a disability. The problem for Tate is that the cases establishing that general principle arose in very different contexts: they did not involve jobs with public safety

emerg ency duties.

In Miller v. Illinois Department of Transportation , for example, we recognized that where employees work as a team,

“ each member” of the team might not have “to be able to doNo. 21-2752 13

every task required of the entire team.” 643 F.3d at 198 (emphasis in original). In Miller one person on a highway bridge crew had been diagnosed with acrophobia

— a morbid fear of heights. The issue was whether performing tasks more than 25 feet above the ground was an essential function. Id. at 197

– 98. We reversed summary judgment for the employer because some evidence showed that the bridge crew worked as a team, that no individual was assigned permanently to any one task, and that there was no requirement that bridge crew members rotate from task to task in an organized, routine fashion. We concluded that a reasonable jury could find that it was not necessary for any one member of the bridge crew to be able to do every task of the bridge crew as a whole. Id. at 198. The plaintiff had “presented evidence that ... the team

ac commodated the various skills, abilities, and limitations of the individual team members by organizing itself according to those skills, abilities, and limitations.” Id. Since one team member could not weld, for example, other members of the
team would do the welding. Id. The same was true with work more than 25 feet above the ground. Id. at 197.

Miller remains good law, but context matters. In the Cook County Department of Corrections, while the correctional staff surely work as a team in a larger sense, t hey cannot share the responsibility of responding to violent emergencies and sudden physical altercations by stepping aside and calling others. Responding to a public safety emergency is just not the same as maintaining bridges.
Nor is it the same as being able to drive a bus. In Brown v.
Smith , one question was whether it was essential for a street supervisor in a local bus system to have a commercial driver’s
license. 827 F.3d at 613

– 14 (affirming summary judgment for14 No. 21-2752

employee). Street supervisors generally “helped ensure that drivers left the bus garage with the requisite paperwork and with operational vehicles.” Id. at 612. Occasionally they might be called upon to drive a bus, but “driving buses was not a key responsibility for supervisors because other individualswith CDLs were typically available to drive buses when necessary.” Id. at 614. A replacement driver “co uld generally be
secured within 10 minutes.” Id.
In public transportation and many similar contexts, Brown makes sense. Waiting ten minutes for a replacement bus driver would not likely cause serious consequences. The same simply cannot be said in law enf orcement or corrections. Tobe sure, in certain public safety and law enforcement positions, a person can sometimes wait for backup in an emergency. But not always. If a firefighter waits ten minutes for a replacement, the opportunity “to carry an unconsci ous adult from a burning building” may be lost. See Vargas

, 980 F.3d at1189. The building may have burnt to the ground. The emergency itself dictates when action must be taken. The same reasoning applies here. If Tate were unable to respond as needed

to a violent emergency, the consequences could be grave. As
we observed in Miller , “task reassignments within a job can beunreasonable in situations where the reassigned task is an essential function of the job. In those situations, reassignment or delegation of the task would equate, essentially, to reassignment or delegation of the job itself.” 643 F.3d at 199.

5. Collective Bargaining Agreement
The district court did not discuss the collective bargaining agreement governing correctional lieutenants, but it is relevant. The agreement creates a seniority

- based bidding system for lieutenants on active duty to bid on vacant assignments.No. 21-2752 15

Although seniority is generally defined as the length of theemployee’s continuous employment since being hired, lieutenants bi dding on vacancies are ranked according to their relative seniority as sergeants. As the Supreme Court hasnoted, a seniority system will prevail over a requested accommodation “in the run of cases.” US Airways, Inc. v. Barnett , 535 U.S. 391, 394 (2002). B ased on US Airways , we have said that “it is unreasonable to assign an employee to a position as anaccommodation if doing so would violate the employer’s seniority system.” Dunderdale v. United Airlines, Inc. , 807 F.3d 849, 854 (7th Cir. 2015) (affirming summary judgment for employer) ; s ee also Eckles v. Consolidated Rail Corp ., 94 F.3d 1041,1051 (7th Cir. 1996) (affirming summary judgment for employer where employee with disability sought accommodation that would conflict with bona fide seniority system for shift assignments under collective bargaining agreement).
Here, the Sheriff argues that Tate seeks to “override the collective bargaining agreement’s seniority

- bidding provisions ... which the ADA does not require.” While it is true that US Airways and Dunderdale would not require accommodating Tate if the seniorit y- bidding system were inflexible, the agreement here provides that the Sheriff “will consider such factors as training, education, experience, skills and ability, in addition to seniority ” when making specific job assignments. (Emphasis added.) US Airways has something to say about the presence of such discretionary power.
Discussing “special circumstances” that might overridethe presumption of unreasonable accommodation that attaches in a seniority system, the Court noted that a “plaintiff might show that the system already contains exceptions such that, in the circumstances, one further exception is unlikely to16 No. 21-2752

matter.” US Airways , 535 U.S. at 405. In this case, the Sheriff’sdiscretion to consider factors like “ability, in addition to seniority,” create s those special circumstances. While the Courtwas addressing the reasonableness of a proposed accommodation, its logic still applies to the essential

- functions inquiry.The agreement here does not help Tate create a genuine dispute regarding essential fun ctions, and this may be why the district court never discussed it. But the agreement favors Tatein that it at least dispels the Sheriff’s argument that the seniority system alone renders Tate’s proposed accommodation unreasonable. In most cases, the Sheri ff’s argument might be strong, but this collective bargaining agreement lacks the rigidity present in US Airways and Dunderdale

.
6. Work Experience of Past Incumbents in the Job
The sixth and seventh regulatory categories taken together speak to “the emplo yer’s actual practices in the workplace.”
Miller

, 643 F.3d at 198. But they are distinct. The seventh category looks to the “current work experience of incumbents in similar jobs .” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3)(vii) (emphasis added). Here, those are the officer and sergeant positions. The sixth category considers the “work experience of past incumbents

in the job .” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3)(vi) (emphasis added). Here, that’s the lieutenant position, so we start with the evidence on the position Tate seeks.

As not ed, both former and current lieutenants testifiedthat they have less physical contact with inmates than do sergeants or officers. Some lieutenants have rarely, if ever, needed to counter inmate violence with physical force. Often they delegate responsibil ities for the “receipt, care, and release of inmates” to officers and sergeants. And some assignments are centered on non

- physical responsibilities. InNo. 21-2752 17

External Operations, lieutenants primarily ensure adequate staffing and conduct rounds. In Records, wher e Tate hasworked as a sergeant, lieutenants focus on overseeing discharges and staff, entering court orders, tracking inmate sentences, and ensuring timeliness. Some of these assignments can be long

- term, with some lieutenants remaining in them for years at a time. In another context

— one outside the realm of public safety and law enforcement

— this sort of evidence might swing the analysis in Tate’s favor or at least create a genuine dispute of fact.
But evidence speaking to the actual experiences of
lieute nants also works against Tate. Lieutenant Collins testified that in his tenure at Cook County DOC, there had
been six riots. While all of these riots occurred before he was promoted, Collins said that riots are “all out,” where “all detainees are fighting and all the officers,” including lieutenants, “are trying to quell the problem.” There is no way to predict when a lieutenant will need to use force, and the need can arise “anywhere in the jail.” This anecdotal evidence is supported by undisputed data sho wing that from
November 2016 to November 2018 there were 114 incidents “where correctional lieutenants were required to use force to
control inmates.”

As we observed in Miller v. Illinois Department of Corrections

, a “prison has to be able to call upon its full staff of correctional officers for help in putting down a prison riot, andtherefore each officer must have ... the capability for such response.” 107 F.3d 483, 485 (7th Cir. 1997) (affirming summary judgment for employer). The point is salient for li eutenants as well as officers in light of undisputed evidence showing that lieutenants are not above the need to use physical force,18 No. 21-2752

whether in response to a full

- blown riot, just a single unruly inmate, or something in

- between. As in Dargis v. Sheahan , 52 6F.3d 981 (7th Cir. 2008), the evidence Tate has provided is insufficient to create a genuine dispute of material fact. Tate has not offered evidence that any of these lieutenants “ needed toavoid all inmate contact at all times,” even if they held assignments where inmate contact was only limited. Id . at 987 (emphasis added) (affirming summary judgment for employer).

7. Current Work Experience of Incumbents in Similar Jobs
While evidence from similar jobs is helpful, its usefulness has its limits. Here, m ost of the relevant evidence speaks to the experiences of lieutenants. But Tate’s own experience as a sergeant provides some support for the view that responding to violent emergencies might not be an essential function of
all lieutenant assignments.

Reca ll that the Sheriff had previously agreed to accommodate Tate’s medical restrictions by allowing Tate to work in the Classification Unit, where the possibility of violence or physical conflict was relatively remote. This accommodation was part of a settlem ent agreement between Tate and the Sheriff’s Office that resolved an earlier failure

- to

- accommodate claim. If it was possible to accommodate Tate’s restrictions asa sergeant, why is it not possible to afford him the same accommodations as a lieutenant? Th e argument has superficial appeal, but it does not persuade us to reverse the district

court.
First, the sergeant and lieutenant positions may have many similarities, but they are still different positions. What is true for one position is not necessarily true for another.No. 21-2752 19

Second , just because the Sheriff has accommodated Tate as a sergeant does not mean that responding to violent emergencies is not an essential function of the position. Tate’s accommodation as a sergeant may very well go above and beyond what the ADA requires. See Shell , 789 F.3d at 720 (reversing summary judgment for employer: i f “the duty at issue is an essential function of the job” that the employer “previously accommodated ... beyond what the ADA demands when it did not require” the employee to perform the duty, then the employer need not “continue to go beyond the ADA’s requir ements.”); Winfrey v. City of Chicago , 259 F.3d 610, 616 (7th Cir. 2001) (affirming summary judgment for employer: “an accommodation that the [employer] was not obliged to perform ... will not count as evidence that the [modified] position” is the same as the unmodified position);
Amadio v. Ford Motor Co. , 238 F.3d 919, 929 (7th Cir. 2001) (affirming summary judgment for employer: “[I]f an employer ‘bends over backwards to accommodate a disabled worker ... it must not be punished for its generosity by being
dee med to have conceded the reasonableness of so far

reaching an accommodation.’”), quoting Vande Zande v. Wisconsin Dep’t of Admin. , 44 F.3d 538, 545 (7th Cir. 1995) (affirming summary judgment for employer).
Third, the law should not penalize parties for earlier settlements. This prior accommodation as a sergeant was not gratuitous. It was part of a settlement agreement

— a contract. The settlement agreement rests on “‘a bargained

- for exchange, whereby the promisor ... receives some benefit, or the promisee ... su ffers detriment.’” JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Asia Pulp & Paper Co. , 707 F.3d 853, 866 (7th Cir. 2013), quoting Vassilkovska v. Woodfield Nissan, Inc. , 358 Ill. App. 3d 20, 294 Ill. Dec. 207, 830 N.E.2d 619, 624 (2005). Here, Tate and the20 No. 21-2752

Sheriff’s Offic e contemplated precisely this situation when they entered the agreement. They bargained for it. Tate w as to
remain a c lassification s ergeant , accommodating his disability, and he could “seek promotion to Lieutenant at any time in the future provided” that he could “perform the essential functions” of the position. The settlement agreement was an “agreement to accommodate ... rather than an admissionthat” any particular job function was “not an essential function.” Higgins v. Union Pacific R ailroad Co. , 931 F.3d 664, 671 (8th Cir. 2019) (affirming summary judgment for employer).This does not mean that we wholly discount Tate’s experiences as a sergeant, but their usefulness is limited.
Considering all the evidence on all the relevant factors, we agree with t he district court that even though violent workplace emergencies might be infrequent, the undisputed facts show that the ability to respond to violent emergencies is an essential function for correctional lieutenants. Although the Sheriff may choose to acc ommodate a disability like Tate’s,the ADA does not require him to excuse Tate from the requirement that he be able to respond physically to violent emergencies.

C. Tate’s Alternative Argument
Tate argues in the alternative that even if responding to
viol ent emergencies is an essential function of the lieutenant position, he actually can “respond to emergency situations iftruly necessary.” Tate offers the testimony of three correctional lieutenants who have worked alongside him. In their personal opinions , nothing would “prevent” Tate from physically restraining an inmate in an emergency. Regardless of the clear instructions that doctors and nurses have given Tate to “avoid situations in which there is a significant chance ofNo. 21-2752 21

violence or conflict,” he cont ends he could respond “if necessary” in an emergency.
Tate’s alternative argument tries to have it both ways. On one hand, he seeks an accommodation because he is to “avoid situations in which there is a significant chance of violence or
conflict.” On the other, he seeks to convince us that his medical restriction is not as restrictive as it appears. He argues that the Sheriff’s Office simply misunderstands the word “avoid.”To Tate, “avoid” does not mean “never do it.” It means something more like “limit, ” and defining it should be part of the ADA’s required “interactive process” between Tate and the Sheriff’s Office. He argues that the meaning of “avoid” is a question for a jury, not this court. We disagree.
Health care professionals who prescribe these k inds of
medical restrictions know the difference between “avoid” and “occasionally” and “sometimes,” particularly with respect tothe physical demands of jobs. So do we. Federal courts frequently encounter these concepts in judicial reviews of Social
Secur ity disability decisions. A typical example appears in Briscoe ex rel. Taylor v. Barnhart , 425 F.3d 345 (7th Cir. 2005), where the administrative law judge wrote that the claimant had the residual functional capacity to: “lift/carry 10 pounds frequently an d 20 pounds occasionally , push/pull 10 pounds frequently and 20 pounds occasionally , sit 6 hours in an 8

– hour day, walk 6 hours in an 8

– hour day, stand 6 hours in an 8– hour day, avoid all exposure to temperature extremes, avoid concentrated exposure to dus t/fumes, and no commercial driving.” Id . at 352 (emphases added).

“Avoid” means “avoid.” Merriam

- Webster defines “avoid” as “to keep away from, to prevent the occurrence or effectiveness of,” and “to refrain from.” Avoid , Webster’s22 No. 21-2752

Third New International Dictionary 151 (unabr. ed. 1993). TheOxford English Dictionary defines “avoid,” in the “usual current sense,” as “to leave alone,” to “keep clear of or awayfrom,” to “shun,” to “have nothing to do with,” and to “refrain from.” Avoid , 1 The Oxford English Dictionary 823 (2d ed. 1989). “Avoid” does not mean “only occasionally” or “limit,” which Merriam

- Webster defines as “to restrict thebounds or limits of” or “to curtail or reduce in quantity or extent.” Limit , Webster’s Third New In ternational Dictionary 1312 (unabr. ed. 1993). No, “avoid” is more prohibitive. Andit was this prohibitive meaning that the Sheriff’s Office naturally discerned when Tate asked for an accommodation.
Tate cannot have it both ways. “Avoid” cannot mean

“avo id” under one legal theory and “limit” under another. Anemployer must respect a medical restriction like Tate’s according to its plain meaning. See Kotaska v. Federal Express Corp. , 966 F.3d 624, 631 (7th Cir. 2020) (affirming summary judgment for employe r: “The ADA, of course, does not obligate an employer to let its employees exceed their doctor’s restrictions, even if they think they can.”). The Sheriff’s Office cannot be required to read the word “avoid” out of Tate’s
medical restrictions. Tate is not entitled to ask a jury to bend the meaning of those restrictions.
While the district court’s opinion was too deferential to the employer’s judgment, we agree that, on this record, the ability to respond physically to violent emergencies is an essential
fun ction for Cook County correctional lieutenants. Under his medical restrictions, plaintiff Tate cannot fulfill that essentialfunction, so he is not a “qualified individual” for the correctional lieutenant position he sought. The judgment of the district co urt is AFFIRMED

.