T he H on or abl e J am es E. Sh adi d, Dis t ri c tJ udge ofthe  U nited States D istri ct C ou rt for the C en tral D istrict of Ill ino is, 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
- 1949 R EN AE E KS T RAND , P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. S CH OO L D I S T R I CT OF S OM ER S ET, D e f e ndan t

-Appe l l ant .
A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the Western Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 08 C193

—Barb ara B. C rab b , Ju dge .
A RG UE D F EB RU AR Y 21, 2012

— D ECI DE D J UNE 26, 2012

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, Ch i e f J udg e, B AUER, Cir cu i tJudg e, a nd S HA D ID , D i s t r i ctJudg e .  B AUER, Cir cu itJudg e . The pl ai nti ff

- appell ee, Renae Ekstr an d , su ed th e Sc h oo l D ist ric t o f Som erset, W i sco nsi n, under the A m er i can with D i sabi l i ti es A ct2 N o. 11
- 1949 ( AD A) , a l l e g i n gth a tth e s c h o o l d i s t r i c tf a i l e d t o a c c o mm o dat e he r di sabi l i tyi n v i o l at i o n o fthe s ta tu te. The sc ho o l di st r i ctm o ve d f o r s um m ar y j udg m en t, whi chthe dist ri ct c ourtgr anted. W e r everse d that r uling i n part, hol ding that ther e was a tr i abl e i ssue off act as to whethe r Ek st r an d was a qu ali fi ed i ndi vi dualwi tha disa b ility withi n the m eani ng o fthe A DA and as to w hetherthe schoo l di str i ct was aw ar e o fthatdi sabi l i ty. E kstran d v . Sch o o l D i s t . o f So m erset, 58 3 F
. 3d 972 ( 7th Cir
. 2009 )
. The case w ent to tr i al
. A fter the j u ry retur ned a ve rdi ct in f avo r ofEk st ra n d , the schoo l di str i ct m ove d for j u d gm en t a s a m a t t er of law u n d er R u le 5 0(b ), ch all engi ng the suffi ci ency ofthe evi de n c e. The dis tr i ct c ou r t d e n ied th e m ot ion , an d th e s c h oo l d ist ric t t im ely fi l e d th i s a p p e a l
. We a ffi r m.

I . B AC KGR OUND E kstran d tau gh t kind erga r ten at Som erset E lem en tary Sch ool fr o m 2 00 0 to 2 00 5. I n the s pr i ngo f2 00 5, s he as k ed to b e r ea ss i g ne d t o t ea cha fi r st
- g r ade c l as s, a nd t he sc h o o l a g r e e d
. S h e w a s r e l o c a t e d t o a fi r s t
- g r a de cl ass ro om with no exte ri orwin d ows i n a b usy, l oud are a of th e s chool
. Ekstr and spoke w i th herpri nci pal se ver al ti m es to re quest a chan ge of cl ass ro om , and al though the pr i nc i pal worke d to m ake the exi sti ng cl ass ro om m or e hospit abl e, she denie d her re quests to sw i tch r oo m s. I n the f al l of 2 00 5, a fte r the s ch o o l y ea r b eg an, Ek st r an d bega n to experi ence sym ptom s o fse aso nal aff ecti ve diso rder, a f or m o fdepres si on. Both herpsycho l ogi st, Dr
. Ra ndi Er i ck so n, a nd he r pr i m ar y c ar e phy si ci an,N o. 11
- 1949 3 Dr. A rno l d Potek, r eco m m en ded thatshe tak e a l eave of a b se n c e d u e t o illn es s. H er init ial lea ve w as on ly thre e m onths, but the f ol l owing w i nter, herdocto r wro te t o the s ch o o l di st r i ctt o a dvi se tha t Ekstra nd w oul d be unabl e t o re turn t o tea ch f orthe re m ai nd ero f the 2 005- 06 schoo l te rm . That l eave o fabs ence w as then l a t e r e x t e n d e d t o i n c l u d e th e 2 0 0 6
- 0 7s c h o o l t e r m. The eve nts m ostr elevant t o the c urr ent di spute occur re d i n t h e t i m e per i od afterEkstr and rec ei ved her i ni ti althr ee - m o nth l ea ve o fabs en ce b utb efo r e th e l eave was extended for t he r esto fthe schoo l ye ar ( ro ughl y the ti m e be tw een Octo bero f20 05 and J anuary o f 2006 )
. W hen the case went to tr i al, the parti es ar gued ov er w hetherEkstr and w as eve r em oti onal l y c apabl e o f re turni ng to work du ri ng that ti m e per i od and w hether th e sc hool di st r i ctwas a war e o fhe r c apabi l i tyt o r etur n. F o r e xa mpl e , a l e t t e r fr o m D r . E r i c k s o n d a t e d N o v e mber 28, 2005, w as d eli vered to the sch o o l d istri ct’s offi ce. The l ett erdetai l ed Dr. Eri ckso n’s o pini on that na tu r all i g htwas c r uci alt o Ek st r an d’ s r ec o ve r y a nd that h er cl ass ro om witho ut window s had be en a m aj or cau se of her cond iti on. Th is l etter bac ked up Ek stran d ’s pr i o r c o n v e r s a t i o n s wi th b o th th e s u p e r i n t e n d e n ta nd the s choolpri nci pal i n w hi ch she had com m unica ted th e i mpo r t a n c e o fn a t u r a l l i g h tt o h e r r e c o v e r y ( an d aga i n, we re i ter ate , scho olo ffi ci al s r efused each re quest for a classroom cha ng e). W ha t f o l l o ws a r e j us t a f ew o fthe mor e r el ev an t f ac tu alde velopm en ts tha t ca m e o uta t tr i al
. The schoo l superintendent te sti fi ed, s tati ng tha t a l though D r. Eri ckso n’s N ove m ber28 l ett erwas del i ver ed to his4 N o. 11
- 1949
o ffi ce ’ s bus i ne ss mana g er, he n ev ers aw i t unt i l he becam e a w ar e o fEkstr and’s l aw sui t m uch l ate r in 200 6. The s ch o o l princi pala l so t es ti fi ed ab o utc o nv er sa ti o ns s he h ad wi th Ek s t r a nd i n whi c h Ek s t r a nd r e qu e s t e d a new r oo m w ith exte ri orwindow s. Final l y, Dr. Eri ckso n tes ti fi ed that Ekstr an d would have been capabl e o fr eturni ng to w or k fro m Octobe r 18 to Decem ber14 i fshe had been pro vi ded a cl ass ro om with naturall i ght. This case n ow c om es bef or e us f orthe seco nd ti m e. I ni ti al l y, the sc h oo l di str i ct had fi l ed a m oti on f or sum m ar y j ud gm ent; the dist ri ct c ourtgr anted that m o ti o n a nd we r ev er se d i n pa r t, fi nd i ngtha t a g en ui ne i ssue ofm ate ri alf act exi sted fo r re sol uti on. Thi s l ed to a j ury tr i ali n the dist ri ct c ourtto de c id e th e co ntest ed i ssues . Ekstr and w on hercas e, an d n ow the sc hool d ist ric t a p p e a ls t h e d en ial of it s R u le 5 0(b ) m ot ion . Th is ti m e a round , we confi ne o ur di scussi on t o the i ssues re l evantto the schoo l di str i ct’ s t w o sp eci fi c chal l enges : wh e th e r th e r e wa s s u ffi c i e n te v i d e n c e f o r a j u r y t o fi nd that Ekstr and w as a qual i fi ed i nd i vi du alwith a di sabil ity un d er the A D A , and w he th er there w as su ffi ci ent e vi dence f ora j ury to fin d that the schoo l di st r i c tk n e w o fth a td i s a b i l i t y wi th i n th e r e l e v a nt t i me pe r i o d.
I I . DI S C US S I ON W e r evi ew the dist ri ct c ou rt ’s denia l o fa Rule 50( b) m o ti o n f o r j udg m en t as a ma tter ofl aw de no vo , v i ewi ng th e evide nc e available to the j ury in th e l ig ht m ost favora b le t o E ks tr an d
. Wat e rs v. Ci ty of Chi cago , 5 8 0 F
. 3d 575,N o. 11
- 1949 5 58 0 (7 th C ir. 20 09 ) (cit at ion s o m itt ed ). W e w ill on ly re ve rs e if n o re as on ab le jur or co u ld h av e fo u n d in E ks tr an d ’s fa vo r. Id
. W e be g i n o ur a na l y si s byr ec o unti ng the r el ev an t st an dard und er t he A DA
. Ekstr and’s burden attr i alwas to sh o w tha t ( 1) s he i s a quali fi ed i ndi vi dualwi tha disabi l i ty; ( 2) th e schoo l di str i ct was aware o fherdi sab ility ; an d (3) th e s c h oo l d i s t r i c t fa iled to rea so n ab ly ac c om m od at e th a t d i sa b ility
. Se e, e . g. , Ki ng v. Ci ty of M a dison , 55 0 F
. 3d 598, 60 0 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08)
. The sc hool d istri ct on ly ch all en ges E kstran d on p r o n g s (1) and ( 2), ar gui ng tha t no r eas onabl e j ury coul d have f ound fo r her on th os e g ro und s. S o w as ther e s uffi ci ent e vi dence for a rea so n ab le j u ry to d ec id e th at E ks tr an d w a s a qu alifi ed i nd i vi du alwith a di sabi lity and thatthe schoo l di st r i ctknew of th atdi sabi l i ty ? The r e ar e se ve r alc o ncl usi ons th at re aso nabl e j uror s m ay have draw n gi ven the e vi dence i n thi s ca se. H er e a re ju st a few : they m ayhave c r edi te d Ek st r an d’ s o wn te st i m o ny o ve r the su per i nt en den t’ s o n k eyi ss ue s; they may ha ve f o und Dr
. Er i ck so n c o nv i nc i ngw he n he te st i fi ed th atEk st r an d coul d have r etur ned to her tea chi ng duti es between Octoberand Decem berpro vi ded she had a cl ass ro om w i th natur all i ght; and they m ay have deci ded notto cre ditthe superi ntendent’ s t est i m ony that he w as l ate in read ing D r. Eri c k s on’s letter regard ing the i m p ortance ofnatur all i ght t o Ekstr and’s re cove ry . A gain, these are j us t a few p ossibil iti es. T aken togeth er, th e s e de t e r mi na t i o ns c o ul d l e a d a r e a s o nab l e j ur y t o concl ud e that Ekst ra nd was a qual i fi ed in divi du alwith6 N o. 11
- 1949 a di sabi l i ty i n Octobe r thro u gh earl y Dece m berand that th e s c h o o l d i s t r i c t k n e w a b o u t i t, b u t f a i l e d t o a c c o mm od ate h er w ith a n e w classroom
. Th e po int is, w e are gener al l y f orbi dd en fro m r eexam in in g the f acts f ound by th e jur y a t t ria l. See U
. S. C O NST . am en d
. VII
. Ek stran d ’s case was c onvi nci ng to thes e j uror s, and the schoo l dist ri ct c annot now r etr y the ca se i n the appell ate co urt. T h is c h alle n ge to th e s u fficie n c y of t h e e v i d e n c e is parti cul ar l y weak because we esse nti al l y deci ded thes e ve ry sa m e is su es in E ks tr an d ’s f a v o r th e la st tim e t h is c as e w as be for e u s. See E kstran d v . S c h o o l D ist. of So m erset, 583 F. 3d 972 ( 7th Cir
. 2009 )
. W hen Ekstran d ap peal ed th e e n t r y o fs u mma r y j u d g me n ta g a i ns t h e r i n 2 0 0 9 , we hel d that a ge nuine i ssue ofm ate ri alf act exi ste d both a s to w hether( 1) Ekstrand w as a qual i fi ed i nd i vi du alwith a di sabi l i ty du ri ng the r el evantti m e per i od, and ( 2) as to w h et h er th e s c h oo l d ist r i c t w a s aw ar e. Id. a t9 7 7
. By that, we si m plym eant that Eks tr and had p re sente d enough e vid en c e f ora re aso nabl e j ury to fi nd i n her f avo r on those i ssues . The st andard u n d erRule 50 ( b) prese nts us w i th the sa m e q u es tion, and the schoo l di str i ct has notr ai sed any new l ega l th eo ry t hat was not prese nt i n 200 9. In st ead, the schoo l di str i ct hi nges i ts ar gum ent o n var i ous f actu al devel opm ents at tr i althat i t be l i ev es bo l st er s i ts ca se . But as we no te d at oral argum ent, unl es s evi dence f avo ri ng Ekst ra nd i n the pretr i al sta ge has s i nce va nish ed ( and ther e i s no al l ega ti on that i t has ) , we are pre sente d w ith the sam e s i tuati on a s before. Just as th ere w a s suffi cient eviden ce for a possibl e v er dicti n Ekst ra n d ’s f avo r on these ver y i ssues i n the l astappeal, so i s there am ple ev i dence atthe post-N o. 11
- 1949 7 tr ial st ag e fo r a re as on ab le ju r y to h av e fo u n d in E kstran d ’s f avor.
I I I . C ONC L US I ON For the afore m e n t ioned reason s, th e d istri ct cou rt’s or der denyi ng the schooldi str i ct’ s 5 0( b) m oti on i s A FFI RMED .

6- 26- 12