The Honor abl e Sh aron J ohn s on Col em an, Dis t ri c tJ udge f or  the Uni t ed S t at es Dis t ri c tCou rtf or the Northe rnDis t ri c tof I l l i noi s i s s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on.



## 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. 11

- 1896 A NGE LI NA P OV EY, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. C ITY OF J EFFE RS ONV IL LE, I NDI ANA, D efend a nt-A pp ellee.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Indian a, N ew Alb any D ivisi on. No . 4:0 9-CV-00 16 1-RLY-WGH

— Richar d L . Y oun g, Judge
.
A RG UE D F EB RU AR Y 10, 2012

— D ECIDED O CT OB ER 4, 2012

Befo re R IPPLE a nd R OV NER, C ircu it Judges, an d C OLE MAN, D istrict Judge.  C OLE MAN, D istrict Judge. A ngel i na Pove y injured her w ri st w hi l e w or ki ng as an att endant at the C ity of J effersonvill e (“J effersonvill e”) a ni m al shelter. J effer sonvi l l e ul ti m ate l y t er m i nated Pov ey’ s e m plo y-2 N o. 11

- 1896

m ent. Pove y b ro ught thi s a ctio n und er42 U
. S. C. § 1 2101 al l eg i ngtha t he r t er m i na ti o n v i o l at ed th e Am er i ca ns w ith Di sabi l i ti es Act( “ADA ”)
. The di st r i ctc o urt gr anted J effer sonvi l l e’ s m oti on f orsum m ar y j ud gm ent, f i nd i ng tha t Po v e y do e s no t qu a l i fy a s “ di s a b l e d” under th e A D A . W e a ffirm
.
I. B ACK GR OUN D A s o ne o fthr ee adopti on a ssi sta nt/kennelat tendants f orthe J effers onvi l l e a ni m alshel ter, A ngel i na Pove y was r es po ns ibl e f o r c l ea ni ngthe s he l te r, fee di ng and tra nsport i ng the ani m al s a nd as si sti ng with ani m al adopti ons. I n additi on t o these duti es, the j ob descri p ti on f ora kennelat tend an t noted thatthe posi ti on “ m ay r e qu i r e the [ e mpl o y e e ] t o l i ft o b j e c t s he a v i er than 30 pou n d s fo r extended peri ods. ” Tw o orthr ee adopti on kennelat tendants work ed fr om M onday thro ugh Fr i day, o ne was ass i gned to work on S atur days with the office m anage r and one work ed al one on S und ays to tend to the ani m al s. Giv en this sche du l e, Pove y w as re quir ed to work both Sa turday and Su n d ay o f ev er y t h ird w ee ke n d
. I n Octobe r 2007, Pove y inj ured herwr ist m ovinga d og from one ca ge to anot he r at t h e a nim al shelter. P o vey rep orted her inj ury to h er sup ervisor H arry W i l der ( “W i l der”)
. Pove y e ventual l y had sur ger y o n her w ri st and und er w ent physi calther apy to address the i m pai rm ent thro ugh A ugust 2 008. S h ortly after Pov ey’s i njury, K im Ca labro ( “C alabro”), J effer sonvi l l e’ s Hu m an Reso urces Dir ecto r expla i nedN o. 11

- 1896 3 to W i l der that s i nce th e ani m alshel terdi d not hav e l i g htduty po si ti o ns a va i l ab l e th er e was no r equirem ent to provi de Pov ey w i th an al ternati ve ass i gnm ent. W i l der, however, al l owed herto conti nue to work, but l i m i te d h er duti es to ass i gnm ents i n the cat ro om and the i nfi rm ar y. H e also exem pted Poveyfro m wor k i ngwee k en ds be ca us e itwoul d e nt ai l c l ea ni ng th e en ti r e an i m als he l te r a l o ne , i nc l udi ngs o m e l i fti ng of heavy ob j ects
. Con seq ue nt ly, her c o -w orkers w ere f or ced to work w eek en d s m or e fre quentl y a nd beg an to com pla i n abo ut the change i n thei r w or k s chedules
. I n M ay of 2008, Pove y r epor ted to Cal abr o that one of her co- w or ker s, Loui s Hancock, had begun to hara ss her because o fherwork re str i cti on a nd the effect i t had o n hi s wo r k s c he du l e . An i nv e s t i g ati on by a hum an r eso u rc es consul tant concl ud ed that H ancock w as not i l l ega l l y har ass i ng Pov ey. N eve rthel ess , to avo i d fr i cti on, the ani m alshel terr equi re d Povey an d H an c oc k t o w o r k in se p ar at e loc at ion s a t a ll ti m es. Fa i l i ng to co m plywith thi s a rra n ge m ent b y ei therPove y o r H ancockco uld have le d to thei r ter m i nati o n. Despit e the i nvest i gat i on a nd i m ple m entat i on o f the s epara ti on pol i cy, Pove y r epor ted thatshe fel t har ass m en t “b eh i nd he r ba ck ” an d fi l ed a com pl aint ag ains t H an co cko n Aug us t 8, 2 00 8. Dur i ngthe sam e m onth, J effer sonvi l l e r ecei ve d m edi calnot i ce ofPove y’ s per m anent physi calr est ri cti ons w hi ch pro hibi te d r epe ti ti ve ha nd mov em en t and no l i fting, pus hi ng o r p u l l i n gmo r e th a n fi v e p o u n d s w i th h e r r i g h ta r m.4 N o. 11

- 1896 A fternot i ce o fthe re str i cti ons, Pove y was pl aced o n l eave with payto t ake effect on Au gust 28, 20 08. J effer so nv i l l e o ffi ci al s di sc us se d Po ve y ’ s r es tr i ct i o ns and abi l i ti es, an d deter m i ned that Poveyco uld not per f o r m the e ss en ti alfunc ti o ns o fa do pti o n k en nela tt en dan t. Po ve y ’ s empl o y m en t was t er m i na te d f o ll owi ng th e m ee tin g. Fol l owing her ter m i nati on, P ove y fi l ed a di scr i m i nati on c l a i m wi th th e E E O C a n d a c o mpl a i n ta l l e g i n gt wo cl ai m s o fdi scr i m i nati on under the AD A ag ai nst the Ci ty ofJ effer sonvi l l e. Pove y a sse rt ed that J effer sonvi l l e f ai l ed to acco m m odate her disabi l i ty and subj ecte d her to di spara te tr eat m ent. Pove y a l so cl aim ed she w as ter m i nated in r et al i at i o n f o r he r pr i o r c o m pl aint s o fha r as sment and discr i m i nati on. J effer so nvi l l e fi l ed a m oti on f or sum m ar y j ud gm ent a s t o both cl ai m s. The di str i ct cou rt gr an ted de fend an t’s m otion for su m m ary j ud gm ent a nd di sm i sse d Povey ’ s cl ai m s fi nd i ng tha t Pove y f ai l ed to dem onst ra te that she was a quali fi ed i nd i vi du alwith a di sabi l i ty und erthe A DA
. S peci fi cal l y, th e co ur t f o u n d t h a t P o v e y f a i l e d t o p r e se nt suffi ci ent e vi dence to dem on st ra te that ( 1) herwri st i njur y i m pai re d her f ro m co m ple ti ng dai l y t ask s; ( 2) he rpe r ce i ve d i m p airm en t forecl osed her from accepting a bro ad ra nge or cl ass of j obs ; ( 3) she w as p ercei ved unab le to p er f or m m anual ta sks ; ( 4) she w as a qual i fi ed i ndi vi duala s defi ne d under th e AD A and ( 5) s he w as t e r mi na t e d i n r e t a l i ati on f or exer ci si ng her rig h ts u n d er th e A D A
.N o. 11

- 1896 5 I I . DI S C US S I ON Su m m ar y jud gm en t is ap p ro p ria te w h e n th er e is “n o g en ui ne di spu te a s to any m at er i alf ac t an d the m ov a n t is en tit led to j u d gm en t a s a m at te r of law .” F ED .R .C IV . P. 56(a). W e review the d istri ct co u r t ’s deci si on o n sum m ar y j ud gm ent deno vo , v i ewing the e vi dence i n the l i ght m ost f avo ra bl e t o P ov ey . See Pow e rs v. Hol l and, 6 6 7 F
. 3d 815, 819 (7th Cir. 2011 ). Poveyargues that Jeffer sonvi l l e ter m i nated her e m plo ym ent in vi ol ati on o fthe A DA , w hi ch prohibi ts disc ri m i nati on a gai nst “ a qual i fi ed i nd i vi du al w ith a di sabi l i ty be ca us e o fthe di sabi l i ty
. ” 42 U
. S
. C. § 1 21 12 ( a)
. The A c t d efi nes a “qual i fi ed i nd i vi du alwith a di sabi l i ty” as “a n indi vi dualwi tha di sab il ity who , wi tho r wi th o ut re aso nabl e a ccom m odati on, can per f or m the ess enti al functi ons ofthe em plo ym ent posi ti on that s uch i nd i vi du al h old s o r d es ire s.” 42 U .S.C . § 1 2 11 1(8 ). To av oid sum m ar y j ud gm ent, a p lainti ffm ust dem onst ra te a g e ne r a l i s s ue o fma t e r i a l f a c ta s t o wh e the r s he i s di s a b l e d, w hethershe c an per f or m the ess enti alfuncti ons of the pos i ti on a nd wh ethershe has s uffer ed an adver se em p l o y m e n t a c tio n be c au se of h er d isa b ility
. N e s ev. Ju l i an Nor di cCo n s t
. Co ., 40 5 F .3d 63 8, 64 1 (7 th C ir. 20 05 ). W e m ust fi rs t co nsi der whether Pov ey i s di sabl ed w ith in t h e m e an in g of t h e A D A
. M i l l e rv. Il l
. D ept
. of Tran s. , 6 4 3 F
. 3 d 1 9 0 , 1 9 5 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 1 1 )
. The ADA defines “dis abi l i ty” as ( 1) a physi cal or m en tal i m pai rm ent that s ubstanti all y l i m i ts one orm or e o f th e m aj or l ife a c t iv iti es of the ind ivi d ua l; ( 2) a r ecord6 N o. 11

- 1896

Pov ey does n ot c hall enge the dist ri ctcourt’ s findings that  Pove y’ s wri s ti nj ur y di d notc ons t i t ut e a di s abi l i t y u nd er the A D A an d tha t J efferso nv ille d id no t reg ard he r as sub stan tially lim ited in he r ab ility to p erform m an u al task s. ofsuch a n i m pai rm ent; o r ( 3) being r ega rded as havi ngs uc h a n i mpa i r men t
. 4 2 U. S
. C. § 1 2 1 0 2 ( 1 )
. On appeal, Pove y on ly cl ai m s that J effer sonvi l l e r ega rded her as havi ng a su b stanti ali m pai rm ent that l i m i ts her abi l i ti es i n the m aj orl i fe a cti vi ty ofworking.  To m eetthe “r ega rded as” p ro ng, the em plo yerm ust believe, correctly or not, th at th e em p loyee has an i m p airm ent that substa nti al l y l i m i ts one or m or e of th e m aj or life ac tiv itie s. C igan v. C h ip pewa Falls Sch. D is t. , 38 8 F
. 3d 331, 33 5 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04) ( ci ti ng Su tto n v . U n i ted A irlines , 527 U
. S. 471, 489, 119 S. Ct. 2139 , 214 9-50, 144 L.Ed. 2d 450 ( 1999 ) )
. Fur th er, wh en the m aj or l i fe a cti vi ty of w or ki ng i s a t i ssue, an ind i vi du alm ust be re gar ded as “s i gni fi cantl y r est ri cted i n the abi l i ty to p erf or m ei thera cl ass o fj obs o r a br oad r ange ofj obs in v ar iou s c las se s as c om pared to the aver age p er so n h av in g c om p ar ab le t ra in in g, sk ills an d ab ilitie s.” P ow ers v. U
. S.F H olland, Inc. , 66 7 F
. 3d 815, 82 0 ( 7th C ir. 2011) (qu oting 29 C
. F.R. 1630
. 2(j )( 3)). T o d em on st ra te th at sh e is su b st an tia lly lim ite d in th e a c t i v i t y o fw o r k i n g, P o v e y mu s tp r o v i d e “ s o me proo fo fthe ‘ num berand ty pes o fj obs ’ withi n the ‘geo

g r a p h i c al a re a t o w h ich th e [c laim an t] h as rea so n ab le acces s. ’ ” EE O C v. Rockwe ll Inte r nat i onal Co. , 24 3 F
. 3d 1012 , 10 18 ( 7th Ci r. 20 01) (cit i ng Sut t on , 52 7 U.S
. at49 2- 93 ). Th is ev id en c e d oe s n oth av e t o b e p re se n te d in q u an ti-N o. 11

- 1896 7 tat i ve f or m , but does re quir e the pre senta tio n of gener al em plo ym ent dem ographi cs o r the a pp ro xi m ate num ber o fj o b s ( e . g . ‘ fe w’ , ‘ man y ’ , o r‘ mos t ’ ) fr o m whi c h a n i nd i v i dual would be exclu ded bec ause ofan i m pai rm ent. R o ck w ell Int’l, 24 3 F .3d 10 12 , 101 8. P ov ey as se rt s t h at te st im on y fro m Jeffe rs on ville offici al s ind i cating tha t s he was not abl e t o use her ri ght ha nd o r perf or m shel terwork because o fher liftin g re st ric t i o n s i s e v id en c e t h at Jeffe rs on ville r eg ar ded he r as di sabl ed unde r th e AD A’s defin i ti o n. S pec ificall y, Pov ey p oints to Ca l ab r o ’ s te st i m o ny tha t“ Po v e y wa s n’ t abl e t o u s e h e r r i g hth a nd ” an d W il d er’s testim ony that he believed that Pove y’s w or k r est ri cti ons pr ev ented herfro m per f or m i ng her j o b a n d th a tJ e ffe r s o n v i l l e d i d n o th a v e a j o b f o r s o meo ne w i th a perm an ent di sabi l i ty. Pove y m ai ntai ns that these st ate m ents dem onstrat e J effer sonvi l l e’ s per cepti on th ats he was s ubs ta nt i al l y l i m i te d t o pe r f o r m a ny j o b i nv o l vingmanua l l abor an d, the r efo r e, a r e su ffi ci en t e v i de nc e f r o m whi c h a j ur y c o u l d c o nc l ud e that J effer sonvi lle perce i ved heras excl ud ed fro m a cl ass of jobs
. Po ve y r el i es o n A rm o ur v. Ind epende ntLi m e s t one Co. , 2000 U
. S. Dis t. LEX IS 1 6650 ( S. D. I nd
. M ar . 16 , 20 00) to s uppo r t he r a r g um en t. I n Armour, the dist ri ct cour t deni ed de fen dant’s m oti on f orsum m ar y j ud gm ent, ho l d ing th at certain st atem en ts m ade b y t he com p an y’s presid en t d em ons trated that the p lai nt iff’ s em p loyer perceived him as bein g un able to pe rform a br o ad r an g e o fj o bs e ve n w ithou t ev i den ce o fthe8 N o. 11

- 1896 actualnum bero fj obs i n the re l evan t g eog ra phicalar ea. Id
. at* 13- 16. The co urt descr ibed the em plo yer ’ s s tat em ents as “sw eep ing,” and thereb y exc lud ing th e plaintiff f ro m o thercl ass es ofj obs bey ond t hose atthe com pany. The re f or e, the cour t found that the pre si dent’s st ate
men t s a l o ne we r e suf fi c i e ntt o a l l o w a j ur y t o c o nc l ud e th at th e plaintiff’s em p loyer r egard ed the p lai nt iff as d isa b led u n d er th e A D A
. Id
. P o v e y ’ s s i t u a t i o n i s d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e fr o m A rm o u r. H er e, none ofthe sta tem ents m ade by C al abr o and W i l der ar e s o “sweeping” as to ex c lu de Pove y fro m a bro ad c l a s s o fj o b s . Ca l a b r o ’ s an d W i l de r ’ s s t a t e men t s we r e ma de i n re sponse to questi ons re gar ding Povey ’ s abi l i ti es to c om p l ete ta sks speci fi c to the J effer sonvi l l e a ni m al shel ter
. Fo r ex am ple , Cal der’ s t est i m ony that W i l der tol d her that Povey“co uldn’ t do a whole lo t ofanythi ng” w as dir ectl y in re sponse t o a qu est i on r ega rdi ng wh at h e s p ec ifica lly sa id sh e c ou ld n otd o re lat ed to d u tie s in the a ni m al shel terf aci l i ty. W i l der’ s s tat em ent that J effer sonvi l l e, “di d not hav e a j ob f orthat ” wa s al so i n re sp on se to a speci fi c quest i on r ega rdi ng wh ether Po ve y c o ul d c o nt i nue t o p erfor m he r j o b atthe an i m a l sh elt er giv en h er p er m an en t re st ric tio n s. It is c lea r th at, w h en ta ke n in c o n te x t, th e s ta te m en ts on ly re fer to Pove y’ s abi l i ti es to w or k withi n the ani m al shel ter
. The f act th at J effer sonvi l l e v i ew ed Pove y a s u n ab le t o p er for m th e t as ks req u ire d att h e Jeffe rs on ville an im al shelter tell s us noth ing abou t Jeffersonv il le’ s perce pti on of h erabi l i ti es to perf or m a bro ad ra nge o f j ob s. SeeSqui bb v. M em o ri al Ctr
. , 49 7 F
. 3d 775, 78 2 ( 7th C i r . 2 0 0 2 ) ( “ A d e mo n s t r a t e d ‘ i n a b i l i t y t o p e r f o r m aN o. 11

- 1896 9 si ngl e, part i cul arj ob’ d oes notr ender an i nd i vi du al substa nti al l y l i m i ted i n the m aj orl i fe a cti vi ty ofworking. ”) Even vi ew i ng the fa cts i n the l i ght m ostf avo rabl e t o the no n-m oving par ty, the sta tem ents prese nted do not c o ns t i t ut e f a c t s fr o m whi c h a j ur y ca n r e a s o nab l y c o nc l ud e that J effer sonvi l l e re gar ded Povey as disabled u nd er th e AD A. H avi ng f ai l ed to m eetherburden t o dem on st ra te that she was di sabl ed und erthe A D A , P ovey i s no t pr ote cted by i ts provi si ons. There f or e, the Court need not re vie w P ov ey ’s re as on ab le a c c om m od at ion cla im
. See Id. a t7 8 6
. Wi tho ute v i de nc e th a tP o v e y i s di s a b l e d, Poveycannot survi ve sum m ar y j ud gm ent o n herdi spara te tr eat m en t an d f ai l ur e to a cc o m m o dat e cl ai m s unde r the AD A. P ov ey als o a rg u e s t h at th e d ist ric t c ou rterr ed in gr anti ng J effer sonvil l e s um m ar y j ud gm ent with re spect to her A DA r eta l i ati on cl ai m . The A DA pro hibi ts em plo yers from r e taliati ng against em p loyees w ho as sert th ei r r i g htunde r the a ctt o b e free f r o m di sc r i m i na ti o n. 42 U
. S. C. § 1 2203 ( a)
. “ Empl o y e r s ar e f orbi dd en f r o m r e t a l i a t i n ga g a i n s te mp l o y e e s w h o r a i s e A D A c l a i ms re gar dle ss ofwh etherthe i ni ti alcla im s o fdi scr i m i nati on ar e m er i tl ess . ” D i ckerson v. Bd. of Educ at i on , 65 7 F
. 3d 59 5, 60 2 ( 7th Ci r . 20 11 )
. I n a di sc r i m i na ti on ac ti o n, a pl aint i ffc ane st ab l i sha v al id ca se o fr et al i at i o n us i ng eit h er th e d ire c t o r in d i r e c t m et h od of p ro of. Kers t i ng v. Wal

-M ar tStore s , Inc . 2 50 F
. 3d 11 09 , 1 11 7 ( 7th Ci r. 2001 )
. P ove y a tte m pts to es tabl i sh a cl ai m o fA DA r eta l i ati on under the di re ct m etho d o f p ro of
. U nd erthe dir ect10 N o. 11

- 1896

m etho d, to prove r eta l i atio n , the pl ai nti ffm ust o ffer evi dence that : ( 1) she engag ed i n sta tutor i l y prote cted acti vi ty; ( 2) th e defe nd ant s ubj ecte d her to an adver se em plo ym ent a cti on; and ( 3) a causalcon n ecti on ex ist ed be tw ee n th e t w o e ve n ts
. Id. There i s no di spute that Po ve y c o m pl aine d t o Ca l ab r o abo uthe r c o - wor k er Hanco ckmakingc o nt i nuo us ha r as si ng c o m m en ts abo ut her w ri st i m pai rm ent a nd tha t pl ai nti ff’ s t er m i nati on con s t i t ut e s a n a dv e r s e e mpl o y men ta c t i o n. T he di s pu te i s wh e th e r th e r e i s a c a u s a l c o n n e c t i o n be twe e n th e t wo eve nts. Po ve y c o nt en ds th atthe c i r cumst an ti ale vi den ce s he prese nted i s s uffi ci ent fora j ury to fi nd a causalco nnecti on betw ee n h erco m pla i nts o fhar ass m ent a nd herte rm i nati on. Fi rs t, Pove y a rgues tha t th e t i m i ng o fher disc harg e was suspi ci ous, o ccurr i n g j ust three weeks a f t e r h e r t h i r d h a r a s s me n t c o mp l a i nt
. S e c o nd , Po ve y t es ti fi ed th atW i l derthr ea te ne d herj o b byi nf o r m i ng h e r t h at “h e h ad n o p ro b lem firin g e m p loy ee s.” L astly, Pov ey con ten d s tha t Jeffersonv ill e’s actions su rro u n d in g h er d ischar ge, i ncl ud i ng: hol ding a m eet i ng ab out her ter m i nati on th at f ai l ed to i ncl ud e a perso n f am i l i arwith he r j ob r esponsibi l i ti es, f ai l i ng to m eetwi th he r i n pe r s o n t o e xp l a i n he r t e r mi na t i on a nd f a i l i ng t o o ffe r he r a n a c c o mm o da t i o n a s a r esul t o f her perm anent r est ri cti on, sugg esta causalco nnecti on b et w ee n h er co m p lain ts an d te rm in at ion
. The m er e f act that J effer sonvi l l e t er m i nated Pov ey thre e w eek s a ftera com pla i nt, byi tse l f, i s no t s uffi ci ent t o cre ate a genui ne i ssue of m ate ri alf act to supp or t a r eta l i a-N o. 11

- 1896 11 tio n cla im
. Se eTur ne rv. TheSa l oon, Lt d. , 59 5 F. 3d 679, 687 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10)
. A dd i ti onal l y, ther e i s no ev id en ce to sugge st that W ild er’ s r em ar k, thathe ha d no pro bl em fi ring em plo yee s, m oti vate d the deci si on to t er m i nate P ov ey . See Fu k a v. Tho m pso n C o nsu m er E lecs. , 82 F. 3d 1397, 1403 ( 7th Ci r. 19 96)
. Lastl y, J effer sonvi l l e’ s a l l ege d f ai l ures i n re l ati on t o th e m anner i n w hi ch i t t er m i nated Po ve y a r e unr ela te d t o he r ha r as smentc o m pl ainta nd J ef fe r s o nv i l l e wa s u nd e r n o o b l i g a t i o n t o p r o v i de h er wi tha r ea so nabl e ac co m m o dat i o n f o r he r i m pairment orenga ge i n a f ace- to-fac e m eet i ng o r any inter acti ve proce ss to add re ss h er abi l i ti es to perf or m herj ob because Pove y i s no t di sabl ed u n d er the A DA
. These f acts are i nsuffi ci ent t o est abl i sh a nexus bet w een he r ter m i nati on a nd herpro tect ed acti vi ty. A ccor dingl y, J effer sonvi l l e is enti tl ed to sum m ar y j ud gm ent o n P ov ey ’s re ta liat ion cla im
. F o r the r ea so ns s ta te d he r ein, we affi r m the g r an ting o fde fen dan t’ s m o ti o n f o r s um m ar y j udg m en t di smi ss i ng ea c h of p lain tiff-a p p ella n t c laim s. A FFI RMED .

10- 4- 12