The Honor abl e RudolphT. Randa, Dis tri c tJ udge ofthe  Uni t ed S t at es Dis t ri c tCourt f or the Eas t er n Di s t ri c tofW i s c ons i n, 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. 12

- 1511 C ARRISJ AMES, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. H YAT TR EG EN CYC HI CAGO, D efend a nt-A pp ellee.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Divisi on. No . 1:09- cv-07873

—Mi lt on I . Sh adur, Judg e.
A RG UE D O CT OB ER 22, 2012

— D ECI DE D F EB RU AR Y 13, 2013

Befo re B AUERa nd R OV NER, C irc u i t Judges , a nd R ANDA, D i s t r i ctJudg e .  B AUER, Cir cu i tJudge . J am es has be en an em plo yee of H yat t Regency Ch i cago ( “H yat t”) si nce 1985
. In A pri l20 07, J am es too k a l eave o fabs ence du e t o an ey e2 N o. 12

- 1511 inj u ry th at oc c u rre d ou ts id e o f w or k. Jam es f i l e d su it in 20 09 c l ai m i ngtha t H y at t vi o l at ed hi s r i g ht s un d er the Fam i l y M edi calLeave A ct ( “FM L A ”), 29 U
. S. C. § 2 601 et seq. , as wellas the A m er i can s w i th Di sabi l i ti es A ct ( “ADA ”) , 4 2 U. S
. C. § 1 21 01 e t se q. Dur i ngdi sc o ve r y, the di st r i ctc o ur t den i ed J am es’ mot i o ns t o c o m pela nd aw ar ded H yat t a port i on of att or ney’ s fees it exp ended re sponding to Pl ai nti ff’ s m oti ons pu rs uant to Fe deral Rule ofCi vi lPro cedure 37( a) ( 5) ( B), and subse qu en tly gr an te d H ya tt ’s m ot ion for s u m m ar y jud gm en t o n all o fJ a me s ’ c l a i ms . F o rth e f o l l o win gr e a s o n s , w e a ffi r m.

I . B AC KGR OUND Jam es has be en co nti nuousl y e m plo yed as a banquet ste w ar d at Hyatt, a hote li n dow ntown Chica go, since 19 85 . W h en Jam e s a p p lied to H ya tt, he n ot ed on h is ap p li cation t ha t he h ad a visi on p roblem thati s corre ctabl e with eye gl ass es and m agni fyi ng g l ass es. H yat t wa s a wa r e th a tJ a me s w a s n e a r s i g h t e d a n d a c c o mm od ated him by i nc reasin g t h e print size ofhis w ork ass i gnm ents and schedules

. As a b an que t st ewa r d , Jam es i s r es po ns ibl e f o rmai ntaini ng the cl eanl i ness of H yat t’ s banquet an d other f o o d

- s e r v i c e a r e a s , a s w e l la s t r a n s p o r t i n gf o o d i t e ms an d eq u ip m en t. Sp ec ifica lly, ac c or d in g to t h e te st im ony ofhi s s up er vi sor s a s wel las H yat t’ s wri tte n j ob descri pti on, J am es’ posi ti on r equi re d him to l i ft pot s an d pa ns and trans p ort garbage can s aroun d H yatt’s banquet and f oo d-se rv i ce a re a.N o. 12

- 1511 3 I n M ar ch 200 7, J am es w as i nvol ved i n an al ter cati on outsi de ofwork and w as pu nched i n the eye . J am es dev el o ped a r et inal d etac hm en t i n h i s l eft ey e i n the w eek s fol l owing the a l ter cati on. In A pr il 2 007, J am es u n d er w en t c or re c tiv e su rg er y a n d h ad to m iss w or k in or der t o re cuperat e. H yat t’ s Hu m an Reso urces Departm en t l earned that J am es’ abs en c e w as att ributabl e t o a m edi cali ssue, a nd p r o v i de d h i m wi th i nf o r mat i o n r e g a r di ngF M LA l eave . A s r eq uir ed und erthe FM LA , H yat t’ s pol i ci es provi de f ortwel ve w eek s o fj ob -p rotec ted l eave f orel i gibl e e m plo yee s. O n A pri l24, 20 07, J am es pr o vi ded H y at t’ s H um anRe so ur ce s Coo r di na tor w i tha note fro m hi s doctor , Dr. S cot t, st ating tha t J am es coul d return to “l i ght duty” o n M ay 10, 20 07. T he not e did notlis t any s peci fi c r est ri cti ons, nordi d i t s ay how l ong J am es m ust r em ai n on l i ght duty. The ne xt day J am es re quested F M LA l e a v e ; t he r equest w as gr anted and H yat t a pp l i ed FM LA r etr oac ti vel y t o cove r J am es’ abs ence p rior to hi s s ubm i ssi on o fthe cer ti fi cat i o n f o r m. O n M ay 9, 20 07, Jam es p ro vid ed H ya tt w ith an au th or iza ti o n fo rthe r elease o fhi s he al thinf o r m at i o n “ f o rthe pu rpos es of author i zi ng a m edi cal l eave . ” J am es provi ded H y at t, a nd i ts s ho r t- te r m di sabi l i typrovider, wi tha su bs t a n tial am ou nt of d isabil ity benefit pap erw ork that re prese nted thath e w as u n abl e t o w or k in any capaci ty. J am es subsequentl y r ecei ved di sabi l i ty benefi ts base d up on those r epres entat i ons. On M ay 11, 2007, Jam es subm i tte d an FM LA cer ti fi cati on f o r m t o Hya ttwh ic h s ta te d tha t J ames r equi r ed co n-4 N o. 12

- 1511 tin u ed FM L A lea ve be c au se h e w a s u n ab le t o w or k in any c apaci ty. Dr. S cot t no ted o n the f or m thatJ am es’ c on d itio n w as p ro b ab ly lon gs t a n d in g a n d m os t like ly o cc ur r ed be f o r e hi s i ni ti alv i si t w ith the do ct o r . The f o rm fu rt h er st at ed th at th is c on d itio n co u ld p os sib ly i ncapaci tat e J am es perm anentl y. J am es ’ twel ve w eekFM LA l eave ended J uly13 , 20 07. The col l ecti ve bar gain in g a gr eem ent b etween hi s uni on and H yat t, how eve r, enti tl ed J am es to re m ai n on j obprot ecte d l eave fo r up to o ne ye arfro m hi s o ri gi nalabsence. On A u gust 2, 20 07, J am es subm i tte d to H yat t a re l eas e fro m Dr. S cot t that s ta te d that J am es w as al l owed to return to w or k o n A ugust 5 , 20 07, with the r est ri cti o n o f b e i ng “ v i s ua l l y i mpa i r e d. ” J a mes t e s t i fi e d that H yat t’ s Hu m an Reso urces Coor d in at orto l d him that he co uld notr etur n to work w i th r est ri cti ons. J am es did notr etur n to work on Au gust 5, and then co nti nued to subm i t paper w or k fro m Dr. Sc ot t repre senting tha t J a me s w a s i nc a p ab l e o fw o r k i n gi n a n y c a p a c i t y . F o r ms provi ded byDr. S cot t s tat ed he was “notsur e” w hen J am es c oul d return to work ( M ay 11, 20 07 and June 14, 20 07form s), th at Jam es w o u ld be u n ab le t o w or k u n til A ugust 20 , 2 007 ( J une 1, 20 07 f or m ) , and that J am es w oul d be di sabl ed u nti lA ugust 5 , 20 07 ( A ugust 2 , 20 07 f o r m)
. Ba s e d u po n J a mes ’ r e qu e s t, a nd Dr. Sco t t ’ s r e pre se n ta tio n s o f Jam es ’ co n d itio n, H ya ttco m p let ed all necess ar y di sabi l i ty paperw or k. On Septem ber25 , 2 00 7, J am es f axed H yat t a not e fro m Dr. M atchi nski, a differ ent doct or, i nd i cating that J ames c o ul d r etur n to w or kwi ththe r es tr i ct i o ns o f“ noN o. 12

- 1511 5 he avy li fti ng or ex cess iv e b en d ing.” Dr. M atch inski’s n ot e m ad e n o re fer en c e t o a n y “ vis u al im p air m en t.” H yatt th en attem p ted to cont a c t J am es in Sep tem ber, and a gain i n Decem ber, to see k add i ti ona l infor m ati on as to th e spe ci fi cs be hi nd hi s r es tr i ct i o ns an d the confl icting p ap erw ork h e w a s su b m it t in g . H o w e ver, m onths w ent b y a nd J am es offer ed H yat t no further cl ar i fi cati on o fhi s co nd i tion
. On J anuary15 , 20 08, J am es Pars ons, H yat t’ s W or ker s’ Com pensati on an d Safety M an ag er, s en t a l et te rdi r ec tly t o Dr
. S co ttr eque st i ng cl ar i fi ca ti o n o fJ am es’ medi ca lc o ndi ti o n. Pa r so ns e ncl ose d w i th t he l ett era re turn- to- w or k c er ti fi cati on f o r m a s w el la s a j o b a na l y s i s f o rJ a mes ’ p o s i t i o n. On J anuary28 , 20 08, Dr. S cot t r esp on d ed st ating tha t J am es coul d retu rn t o w or k b ut co uld notco m ple te any t ask th atr equir ed vi si o n b et te rtha n 2 0/20 0. Af te rr ec ei ving Dr. S cot t’ s l ett er, H yat t sc hedu l ed a m eet i ng with J am es to disc uss hi s r etur n. Duri ng tha t m eet i ng J am es re que st ed, a nd was g r an te d, t wo wee k s o fpa i d v ac at i o n. On F eb r ua r y 1 7, 2 00 8, J ames retu r ne d t o wor ki n the sa m e p os itio n, sh if t, an d se n iorit y lev el a s b efo re h is l eave o fabs ence. J am es testi fi ed that he fel t he w as tr e a t e d f a i r l y d u r i n g th e F MLA a p p l i c a t i o n p r o c e s s a nd that no o ne atH yat t has sa i d anythi ng neg ati ve to him regard ing his leave, eye su rgery, or v isual i m p airm en t. None thel es s, J ames fi l ed su i t i n 2 00 9, a l l eg i ng cl ai m s o fr eta l i ati on a nd int erfer ence w i th hi s r i ghts und erthe FM LA and dis cri m i nati on a nd r et aliat i on unde rthe ADA
. U lti m at ely, the di st r i ctc o ur t f o und that J am es f ai l ed to pre sent a g enui ne i ssue ofm ate ri al f act as to any o fhi s cl ai m s, and gr anted sum m ar y j ud gm ent t o H yat t.6 N o. 12

- 1511 I I . DI S C US S I ON J am es’ cl ai m i n thi s ca se i s uni que i n that h e doe s no t deny he a ske d fo r and w as gr anted FM L A bene fi ts by Hy a t t ; r a the rh e c o nt e nd s tha th e wa s l e fto n F M LA l eave t o o l o ng . In s up po r to fthi s c l a i m, J a mes a r gues th at H yatt fail ed t o prom p tly r etu rn h im to w ork aft er h is s u b m iss ion of va riou s “ re lea se s” from h is p h ys ici an s. The di st r i ctc o ur t g r an ted sum m ary j udg m en t i n f a v o ro fHy a t ta nd di s mi s s e d J a mes’ F M LA a nd ADA cl ai m s. The di str i ct c ourtal so denie d Ja m es’ m oti on t o com pel furtherdi sco very, and subse quentl y i m posed R ule 37 san ctions
. J am es now a p p eals the d istri ct cou rt’s dec i si o n t o g r an t su m m ary j ud gm en t, a s wel la s th e d istri ct c ourt ’ s deni alo fhi s m oti ons to com pel di scove ryand the ass ess m ent o fsa ncti ons. W e r ev i ew ea ch o fJ ames ’ a r g um en ts i n tur n.

A . FM LA I n terf eren ce C laim Jam es firstco n te n d s th at th e d ist ric t c ou rtim p ro p er ly gr anted sum m ar y j ud gm ent o n hi s F M LA int erfer ence claim

. W e review a district cou rt’s grant of su m m ary j ud gm ent de n o vo . D a rst v
. I n terstate B ran ds C o rp . , 51 2 F
. 3 d 9 0 3 , 9 0 7( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 8 )
. S ummar y j ud gm e nti s a ppr o pr i a t e wh e n th e r e i s n o g e n u i n e i s s u e a s t o a ny m ate ri alf act and the m ovin g p ar ty i s e nti tl ed to j ud gm ent a s a m att ero fl aw . Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 56 ( c). W e vi ew th e r ecord i n the l i g htmos t f av o r ab l e to the no n- m o ving p arty an d draw allreaso n able inference s in that pa rty’s fav or . D a rst, 51 2 F
. 3d at 907.N o. 12

- 1511 7 The FM LA m ake s i t un law ful f orany em plo yerto i nt er fer e wi th, r es tr ain, o rde ny the e xe r ci se o fo rthe a t t e mptt o e xe r c i s e r i gh t s u nd e rthe F M LA. 2 9 U. S
. C. § 26 15 ( a) ( 1)
. An e m pl o y ee o n F M LA l ea ve ha s th e r i g ht to be r est or ed to th e sam e o r an equi val ent pos i ti on tha tthe e mpl o y e e h a d b e f o r e h e too kl e a v e . 2 9 U. S
. C. § 2 612. H owever, i fan e m p loy ee cannot perf or m an ess enti alfuncti on o fthei r or i gi nalposi ti on be cause of a phy si ca lo rment alc o ndi ti o n, the em pl o y ee ha s no r i g h tt o r e s t o r a t i o n to a di ffe r e n tp o s i t i o n u n d e rF MLA. 29 U
. S. C
. § 825.216(c). I n o r d e rt o s u c c e e d i n a n F ML A i n t e r fe r e n c e c l a i m, J ames “ m us t sh o w tha t: ( 1) h e was e l i g ibl e f o rthe FM LA pr o t e c t i o ns ; ( 2 ) hi s e mpl o y e r wa s c o v e r e d b y F MLA; ( 3 ) h e wa s e n t i t l e d t o t a k e l e a v e u n d e r F MLA; ( 4) he pr ovi ded suffi ci ent no ti ce of [ hi s] i ntent to tak e l eave ; and ( 5) [ hi s] em plo yerd eni ed [ hi m ] FM LA bene fi ts to w hi ch he was ent i tl ed. ” G o elz er v. Sheb o yg a n C nty ., Wis. , 604 F. 3d 987, 99 3 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10)
. H yat t doe s no t dispute that J am es w as el i gible an d enti tl ed to ta ke FM L A lea ve , an d th at J am es su p p lied n ot ice of h is i nt en t to t ak e F M LA l ea ve . So ou r fo cus tur ns t o the fi fthe lem en t, whethe ra r ea so nabl e j ur y c o ul d fi nd that H yat t deni ed J am es any F M LA bene fi t. A s we have note d, thi s i s a uni que cl ai m i n that J am es c on cedes he was gr anted the fulltwel ve w eek s o f FM L A lea ve ; ra t h er Jam es co n te n d s h e w as w ro n gfu lly prohibi ted fro m re turni ng to w or k pri or to the e x p i ra ti on o fhi s F M LA l eave o n J uly13 , 20 07. S peci fi cal l y, J ames a r gue s th atH yatt int er fer ed wi thhi s F M LA e n-8 N o. 12

- 1511

In t otal, J am es s ub m it ted fi v e d octor’ s notes to H yatt, w hich 1 he cha rac terize s as “p h y si cian release s. ” O nly thre e of tho se d octo r’ s no tes f all w ithin the re lev an t tim e f r a m e of J am es’ FM LA l eave: the A pril 24 note , the M ay 11 note, and the J uly 10 note. W e agree w ith th e dis tr ic t c ourt and rej ectJ am es ’ M ay 11 no te an d J u ly 1 0 no te as p hy sician “relea ses. ” O n b oth of tho se d octo r’ s no tes the q u estion is ask ed , “If m ed ical le av e is re qui re d f or the e m pl oye e’ s abs ence fr om work bec aus e ofthe em p loy ee’s ow n co nd ition ( inclu d ing ab senc es d u e to p reg na nc y or a chro nic co nd ition ), is e m p loy ee u na b le to w ork ofany kind?” [ si c]
. O n both the M ay 11 and the J uly 10 relea se f or m , Ja m es’ p hy sician che ck ed the b ox m ark ed “y es” i ndi c at i n g th a tJ a me s wa s u n a b l e t o r e t u r n t o wo r k i n a ny cap ac ity. Th erefor e, the on ly re lev an t ph y sician ’ s release tha tf all s wi thi n the r e q ui s i t e t i m e fr a m e o fJ a m e s ’ F M LA le a v e i s th e A p ri l 2 4 n o te
. ti tl em ent when i t di d not p rom ptl y r ei nstat e hi m to his p ositi on w he n h e pres en ted the A p ril24 d oct or’s note thatr el eas ed hi m to “l i ght du ty” st ar ti ng o n M ay 11, 2 0 0 7
. I n s up po r t o f hi s a r g ume nt, J a mes r e l i es up on

1 B r um b al ough v. Cam e l ot, 427 F. 3d 996 ( 6th Cir
. 200 5). In Br u mb a l ough , the pl ai nti ffsubm i tte d a docto r’ s no te that state d , i n its ent irety, “[Li n d a Bru m balou gh ] m ay retu rn to wor ko n 8 / 13 / 01 [
. ] S he s ho ul d o nl y wor ka 4 0- 45 ho ur w or k week and l i m i t h er out ofto w n tr avelto 1 day per w eek

. ” Id. at 100 4. H erem plo yerr ej ecte d thi s ce rt i fi cati on a s insuffi ci ent a nd r equeste d that Br um balo ugh su b m i t a d d itio n al d oc u m en ta tio n be for e s h e w as allow ed to re tu rn to w or k. Id

. Th e Si xt h C ircuit cou rt hel d “that once an em plo yee subm i ts a s tat em ent fro m her heal th car e pr ovi der which ind ica tes thatshe m ayN o. 12

- 1511 9

re turn t o w or k, the em plo yer ’ s duty to r einsta te her has been tr i gge re d unde r th e FM LA
. ” Id

. W e a gr ee w i th the ho l di ngi n thi s c a s e , a nd fur the rthe F M LA re quir es an em plo yerto r est or e a n em ploye e t o the pos i ti on he ld atthe ti m e F M LA l eave beg an o r “a n e qui va l en t po si ti o n wi the qui va l en t empl o y m en t benefi ts, pay, and other term s an d condit i ons ofem plo ym ent. ” 2 9 U.S.C
. § 2614 ( a) ( 1)
. H owever, an e m plo yer has no duty under the FM LA to r etur n an e m p loyee to hi s o r her posi ti on, i fthatem plo yee cannotper f or m an es se n tia l fu n c tio n of th e job. See29 C
. F.R. § 825.214(b). The crux o fJ am es’ a rg u m ent o n appeal i s that Hyatt v i o l a t e d the F M LA o n Apr i l 2 4 , 2 0 0 7 whe n i t di d not prom ptl y r ei nstat e hi m to hi s pos i ti on afterhe s ubm i tte d a doc to r’ s no te re l eas i ng hi m to “l i ght duty” be g i nningo n May 10, 2 00 7. W e di sa g r ee . F i r st, the A pri l24 n ote J am es subm i tte d did not re l eas e hi m to r e t u r n t o w o r ki n a n y c a p a c i t y u n t i lMa y 1 0 , 2 0 0 7
. We do not s ee h ow H yat t v i ol ate d Ja m es’ FM LA bene fi ts b y n otret u rn in g h im to w or k on A p ril 24 , w h en h is ow n p h ys icia n r e lea se st at ed h e c ou ld n otret u rn u n til M ay 10, 20 07. S eco nd , the A pri l24 n ote o nl y per m i tte d J ames t o r etur n t o wor ko n “ l i g htduty ” be g i nning M ay 1 0, 2007; the note di d not s peci fy when Ja m es’ “lig h t d u ty ” re st ric tio n w ou ld be lifted . Th e F M L A on ly re quir es that an em plo yerp er m i t a n em plo yee to ta ke up t o t wel ve wee k s o funpa i d l ea ve f or ill ne ss a nd re turn t o hi s pri orposto r an equi val ent pos i tion
. Id. Em plo yer s a re under no obl i gat i on t o re sto re an em p loy ee to h is or h er p os i tio n if th e e m p loy ee is u n ab l e t o p e r f o r m th e e s s e n t i a lfu n c t i o n s o fth e j o b

. As10 N o. 12

- 1511

n ot ed b y t h e d ist ric t c ou rt, w e h av e h eld th at, “[t]h er e is no such thi ng as ‘ FM LA l i ght duty’ ” Hend ricks v. C o m pa ss Grou p, U SA, Inc . , 4 96 F
. 3d 803, 80 5 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07)
. S ee 29 C.F
. R. §§ 82 5. 220( d) a nd 82 5. 702( d) (p rovi ding that a n e mp l o y e e ma y ta k e “ l i g h td u t y ” u n d e rw o r k e r s ’ c o mp en sation or m ay con tinu e w ith un p aid FM L A l eave ). Thir d, Jam es then r epres ented t o H yat t, thr ough di sabi l i ty paperw ork and add i ti onaldocto r cer ti fi cati ons, tha th e wa s c o mpl e t e l y u nab l e t o wo r ki n a nyc a pa c i ty an d r equi r ed di sab i l i tyb en efi ts
. W e ag r ee wi ththe dist ri ct c ourtthatev en wh en the ev i dence i n thi s ca se is v iew ed in t h e ligh t m os t fa vo ra b le t o Ja m es , H ya ttis enti tl ed to sum m ar y j ud gm ent b ecause Jam es has f ai l ed to show that Hyatt i nter fer ed w i th hi s F M LA bene fi ts.

B. F M LA R etali ation C laim Jam es n ex t a rg u es th at th e d ist ric t c ou rterr ed in gr anti ng sum m ar y j ud gm ent o n h is FM LA r eta l i ati on cl ai m . U nd erthe FM LA , em plo yer s a re p ro h ibi ted fro m r eta l i ating ag ai nst a n em p loyee w ho e xerci ses o r attem p ts to exe rcise FM L A ri gh ts. 29 U
. S.C . § 2615(a)(2). I n oth er w ord s, th e em p lo y e r c an not use an em p loyee’s us e o fF MLA l e a v e a s a n e g a t i v e f a c t o ri n p r o mo t i o n, te rm in at ion, an d o t h er em p loy m en t d ec isio n s. B reneisen v. M otorola, Inc. , 5 1 2 F
. 3 d 9 7 2 , 9 7 8 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 8 )
. “ We evaluate a cl ai m o fFM LA r eta l i ati on t he sa m e way that w e would e valuate a cl ai m o fr eta l i ati on under othe r em plo ym ent s tatutes. ” B uiev. Q uad/Graph ics Inc. , 36 6 F.3 d 496, 50 3 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04)
. A pl ai nti ffm aking a c laim f o rr et al i at i o n un derthe F M LA c anpr o ce ed unde rtheN o. 12

- 1511 11

Jam es c o n c e d e s tha t he is un ab le to estab lish a p rim a facie 2 cas e ofFM LA ret ali a tio n und er the i nd ir ectm ethod. J am es b lam es this fact on the d istrict cou rt’ s d en ial o f his m otio n to c om pel di s c ove ry . W e fi nd thi s t o be a m i s s t atem en tofthe reco rd an d w ill ad d ress the d en ial of J am es’ m otio n to com pel, and resul ti ng sanctio n s, in turn. N ext, J am es argues thatw e l es se ned the M cD on n el l D ou glas burde n i n C ol eman v. Dona hue, 6 6 7 F .3d 835, 863 ( 7th Cir

. 2012) and he there f ore do e s n o t h a v e t o e s t a b l i s h a p r i ma f a c i e c a s e u nder t he i ndi re c t m ethod. Thi s i s a m i s s t at em en t of the hol di ng in Colema n an d w e d o n ot in terp ret the con cu rrin g op inio n in thatcase as l es s en i ng a pl ai nt i ff’ s bur den t o e s t abl i s h a prim a f aci e c ase und er M cD on n el l D ou glas. d ire c t o r in d ire c t m et h od s o f p r o o f

. Id

. J a mes p r o c e e ds und er both the dir ect and ind i re ct m etho ds but h is retal i ati on cl ai m , w h i ch i s r eal l y j ust a r ef or m ula ti on o f h i s F M LA i nter fer ence cl ai m , f ai l s be cause J am es pr o duce d no e vi den ce o fa mate r i al l y a dve r se a ct i o n. 2 Underb o th th e d i r e c ta n d in d i r e c tme th o d s , t he pla i nti ffm ust p re sent evi dence thata m ate ri al l y a dvers e ac tio n w as ta ke n by th eir em p loy er . Se eD aughe r ty v . Wab as h Ce nt e rInc . , 577 F.3d 747, 7 5 1 (7th C ir. 2009); Sim pson v. O

ff iceof Chief

Judg e o f C ir cuitCt. of Wil l Cnty ., 559 F. 3d 706, 71 8 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09)
. J am es conte nd s that H yat t’ s “ re fusal ” t o re i nstat e hi m afterthe subm i ssi on ofhi s Ap ril24 docto r’ s no te w as a m ate ri al l y a dvers e em plo ym en t acti on. Fo r an em plo yer ’ s a cti on t o be d e fi n e d a s “ ma t e r i a l l y a d v e r s e ” i tmu s tb e “ mo r e d i s r up ti ve than a m er e inc on ve n ience oran a l ter ati on o fj ob re sponsibi l i ti es. ” Nagle v . Vill. o f C a lum e t P a rk, 55 412 N o. 12

- 1511 F. 3d 1106 , 11 20 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09) ( quoti ng C rady v. Libe rty Nat ’ l Bank & Trus tCo. , 993 F.2d 132 , 136 (7th C ir. 1993)). Forexam ple , a “m ate ri al l y a dvers e chang e m i ght b e i nd i c a t e d b y a t e r mi na t i o n o fe mpl o y men t, a de mot i on ev i den ce d b y a de cr ea se i n wag e o rs al ary, a l es s di st i ngu ish ed t i t l e , a m at er ial los s o f be n efit s, sig n ifica n tly dim i ni shed m ate ri alr esponsibi l i ti es, o r othe r i nd i ces that m ight be uni que to a parti cul arsi tuati on. ” Crady, 993 F. 2d at 136 ( ci tation s o m i tte d). H er e, H yat t’ s “ re fu sa l” t o re in st at e Ja m e s a f t e r th e s u b m iss ion of h is Ap r i l2 4 d o c t o r ’ s n o t e i s no t a ma t e r i a l l y a d v e r s e e mplo ym ent a cti on. A s w e di scusse d above , H yat t di d not vi ol ate the FM LA bynotr etur ni ng Ja m es to w or k o n Apri l2 4, whenhe s ubmi tt ed a do ct o r ’ s no te r el ea sing hi m to r etur n to work on “ l i ght d u ty ” on M ay 10. Further, J am es subm i tte d the Ap ri l24 “l i ght duty” not e on e day pri orto subm i tting, and H yat t g ra nti ng, J am es’ FM LA l eave r equest. T h er ef or e, co nfusingl y, J am es ar gues that H yat t g ra nted h is r equest f or FM LA l eave , and then near l y si m ult aneously re tal i ate d aga i nst hi m f orta ki ng i t. A ctual l y the r eco rd i n thi s ca se indicat es that H yat t att em pted on m ult i ple o ccasi ons to re turn J am es to w or k. H yat t’ s Hu m an Reso urces Departm ent r eached o ut to J am es i n Se ptem ber20 07 and again i n Decem ber20 07, see ki ng cl ar i fi cation o fthe confl i cti ng docum ents he was su b m i tting. J am es neverr esponded to these r equests
. Fin ally , in Jan u ar y 2 00 8, H ya ttrea c h ed ou t d ire c tly to J am es’ phy si ci an, Dr
. S co tt, t o r eque stc l ar i fi ca ti o n. Thi r te enda y s l at er, Dr
. S co ttr es po nde d b y s ta ting that J am es c ou l d return to work but co uld notco m ple te any t askthatr eq u ired vi si on be tte r than 20 /2 00. A fterN o. 12

- 1511 13 Hy a t tr e c e i v e d D r . S c o t t ’ s le tt e r, the y s c he du l e d a m ee t i n gwi th J a me s t o d i s c u s s h i s r e t u r n, a n d d ur i ng tha tme e t i ngJ a mes r e qu e s t e d, a nd wa s g r a nt e d, tw o w eek s o fpai d vacat i on. J am es re turn ed to work on F eb r ua r y 1 7, 2 00 8 to the s ame po si ti o n, s hi ft, an d senio ri ty l eve las befor e hi s l eave o fabs ence. There f or e, J am es has f ai l ed to pro vid e evidence suffi ci ent t o prove hi s c l a i m un de re i the rthe di r e c to ri nd i r e c tme tho d.

C . A D A Failu re t o A cco m m od ate Claim J am es al so cl ai m s that Hyatt f ai l ed to acc om m odate h i m a s r e q u i r e d un d e rth e A D A. T o e s t ab l i s h a p r i ma f aci e c a s e f o rf a i l ur e t o a c c o mm o da t e , “ a p l a i nt i ffm ust sh o w th at : ( 1) he i s a qua l i fi ed i ndi vi dualwi tha disabi l i ty; ( 2) the em plo yerwas aware o fhi s di sabi l i ty; and ( 3) the em plo yer f ai l ed to re aso nabl y accom m odate the di sabi l i ty. ” Kotwi ca v. Rose Packi ng Co. , 63 7 F
. 3d 744, 74 7

- 4 8 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 1 1 )
. T o s u r v i v e a mo t i o n f o rs u mm ar y j ud gm ent, a p l ai nti ffm ust pre sent the c ourtwith ev id en c e t h at, i f be liev ed b y a trie r of fa c t, w ou ld es ta b lish all th re e e lem en ts of h is c laim

. Id

. A dd i tion ally, “t h e s ta n d ar d ru le is t h at a p lain tiff m u stn or m ally r eque sta n acc o m m o dat i o n b efo r e l i ab i l i tyunde rthe A DA at taches , ” Jo va no vi c v. Em e rs on Ele c. Co. , 20 1 F
. 3d 894, 8 9 9 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 0 )
. Ev e n a s s umi ngtha tJ a mes ’ v i s i on i mpa i r me n ta mo u n t s t o a d i s ab i l i t y unde rth e AD A, J am es f ai l s t o pu t f or th suffi ci ent e vi dence to i nd i cate th a tH y a t tf a i l e d t o a c c o mmo d a t e h i m. Jam es argu es th at by rej ectin g his requ ests to retu rn to wor kv i a hi s d oct o r ’ s “r el ea se s, ” H y at t vi o l at ed th e A DA byf ai l i ng to a c c om m odate J am es’ vi si on probl em s,14 N o. 12

- 1511

w i th the sa m e a ccom m odati ons they have provi ded h i m f orthe past tw enty yea rs o fem plo ym ent. I t i s w ellest abl i shed und erthe A DA , tha t an em plo yee begin s t h e a c c om m od at ion “p ro c es s” by info rm in g h is em p loyer ofhis disab il ity; at tha t po int, an em p lo y e r’s “l i ab ility i s t ri gge re d fo r f ai l ure to provi de acco m m odati ons. ” B eck v. U n iv. of Wis
. Bd
. of Regents , 75 F. 3d 1130 , 1134 ( 7th Ci r . 1 9 96). Bu t based on th e evide nc e before us , Hy a t td i d n o tr e c e i v e n o t i fi c a t i o n a s t o th e t r ue sta te ofJ am es’ m edi calco nd i ti on unti lH ya tt proacti vel y r eached o ut to J am es’ physi ci an in Janu ar y 2 008 f orcl ar i fi cati on. Pri or t o that poi nt, J am es w as si m ult ane o us l y s ubmi tt i ngc o ndi ti o na ldo ct o rr el ea se s, a l o ng w ith p a p er w or k in d ica tin g h e w as co m p let ely inc ap ab le o fwor k i ng

— allw hile f ail ing to resp o n d t o H yatt’s r eque st s f o rc l ar i fi ca ti o n a s to the true na tu r e o fhi s co ndi ti on. James a r g ue s th atthe c o nfl i ct i ngmedi ca ldo cum entat i on he subm i tte d cre ate s a m at eri al l y di sputed f act as to w hethero r not J am es coul d return to work. We fi n d th a t c i r c u l a r r e a s o n i n g d o e s n o te s t ab l i s h a p r i ma f a c i e c a s e s h o win gH y a t tf a i l e d t o a c c o mmo d a t e h i m. Inth is c as e, Jam es ’ co n d itio n al re lea se s f r om h is doc t o r s r e s t r i c t e d h i m f r o m pe r f o r mi nge s s e nt i a lfun cti ons ofhi s pos i ti on. F or exam ple , i n the Se ptem ber25 note , J am es’ docto r re prese nted thathe c ou ld r etur n to w or k un der the r est ri cti on o f“no heav y l i fti ng o r ex cess ive bend ing over”

— tw o e s s en tia l fu n c tio n s o f h is p os itio n . Re as sig n in g s u c h ta sk s t o a n ot h er e m p loy ee is not consi dered a re aso nabl e acco m m odati on w hen reassi gnm ent o fthe tas k w oul d equate, es senti al l y, to r eas sig n m en t o f th e job it se lf. M iller v. Ill. D ep’t o f Tran sp ., 643 F.3d 190, 199 (7th Cir. 2011).N o. 12

- 1511 15 The co re o fJ am es’ acc om m oda tion ar gum ent i s that i fh e d id n oth av e a vis u al im p air m en t, H ya ttw ou ld not have prohibi ted hi m fro m r etur ni n g to w or k for ten m onths. The undisputed f acts i n thi s ca se do not su p p or t t h at co n c lu sio n . Ra th er , as w e h av e p re vio u sly disc usse d , the re cor d i nd i cate s that J am es’ subm i ssi o ns o fmedi ca ldo cument at i o n r eprese nt i ngtha t he w as i ncapa b l e o fworking k ept hi m fro m r etur ni ng to work. Fu rthe r, we be l i ev e a tr i ero ff ac t co ul d no t fi nd th atHya tts ud den l y de ci ded no t to e xt en d J ames the sam e a ccom m odati ons f orhi s v i suali m pai rm ent that h e w as affo rd ed d u rin g th e p rior tw en t y y ea rs of h is em plo ym ent a t Hyatt.

D . A D A D isp arate Treatm en t C laim On a ppea l, J ames pr es en ts a n ADA di spa r at e tr ea tment c laim for th e firs t t im e. Jam es fa i l e d t o a rt icu lat e t h is theo ryo r supp or t it w ith any f acts i n the dist ri ct c ourt, and thus has w ai ved the ar gum ent. See Loc al 15, Int ’ l Bhd. o f E lec. Wo rkers v . E xelo n C o rp . , 49 5 F
. 3d 779, 78 3 ( 7th C ir. 20 07 ) (“ ‘A p ar ty w aiv es an y a rg u m en t t h at it do es no t r ai se b efo r e th e di st r i ctc o ur t o r, i fr ai se d in the di st r i ctc o ur t, i t f ai l s to de ve l o p o n a ppea l

. ’ ”( quo ting Willia m s v. R E P C o rp . , 302 F.3d 660 , 666 (7th C ir. 2002))).

E. D enia l ofJ am es’ M ot i on t o Comp el and R ule 37 Sa nc t i o ns Du ring the ar du ous d isc ove rypro cess i n thi s ca se, the par ti es had the be nefi t o feigh tee n m onths of di sc o ve r y wher e J ames was pr o vi ded wi ths everaltho u-16 N o. 12

- 1511

san d doc um en ts in resp ons e to his w ritten d iscovery re quests, and deposed eve ryo ne o fH yat t’ s witnesse s. Then on J une 22, 20 10, J am es bro ught se ver alm oti ons to com p el furtherdi sco ver y r esponse s a nd r equests f or producti on. T hese m oti ons w er e deni ed on J une 24, 2010
. The next day, J am es fi l ed add i ti onalm oti ons to com pel vi rtual l y the sam e di sco ver y r equests
. The di str i ct cour t a gain denie d these m oti ons and aw ar ded H yat t att or ney’ s fees i ncurr ed i n re sponding. Ori gi nal l y, H yat t s ought paym ent o f$5 , 112. 50, the am ount bi l l ed f o rthe a ss o ci at e an d co - co uns elt o r es po nd t o a nd at te nd the he ar ing on J ames ’ mot i o ns t o c o m pel

. The dist ri ct c ourtco nsi dered the ti m e sp en t and the fees incu rred by H yatt an d de term ined only the p rim a ry a s s o c i a t e s fe e s w e r e r e a s o n a b l e u n d e rth e c i r c u mst an ce s an d r educed the fee s awar ded to $ 3, 975. 00
. The dist ri ct c ourto rder ed J am es to pay H yat t $ 3, 975. 00. S e v e r a l m o n th s p a s s e d a n d J a me s f a i l e d t o c o mp ly w ith th is or d er. U lti m ately, th e d istri ct cou rt i nt ervened and or dered J am es’ at torne y t o re i m burse H yat t dir ectly, not i ng tha t i t “ coul d w el lhave j ust bro ught [ Se cti on] 19 27 i nto pla y, pl ace[ d] the o bl i gat i on dir ectly o n [ hi m ], i n w hi ch cas e [ he] would have a probl em i n re cove ring fro m [ hi s] cl i ent. ” J am es now a pp e a l s b o th the de ni a l o f hi s mot i o ns t o c o m pel di scove ry, as wellas the re sul ti ng sa ncti ons. Fi rs t, we note that dist ri c t co urts have br oad di scr eti on i n d i s c o v e r y ma t t e r s , a n d th e r e f o r e th i s c o u r tr e v i e ws the deni alo fm ot ion s to com pel di sco ver y foran abuse of d isc re tio n . Se eKal is v. Colgat e–Palmoli veCo. , 23 1 F
. 3d 10 49 , 10 56 ( 7th Ci r . 20 00 )
. W e sh al l no t r ev erse th eN o. 12

- 1511 17 di st r i ctc o ur t’ s r ul i ngabs enta c l ea rs ho wi ngtha t th e denia lo fdi sco ver y r esul ted i n actualand subs ta n ti al p rej u d ice to Jam es . Se ePackman v. Chi cago Tr i b uneCo. , 267 F.3d 628, 646 (7th Cir. 2001). Des pi te J ames ’ a r g um en ts t o the c o nt r ary, we fi nd no ev id en ce in the re cor d to supp or t hi s co ntenti on that th e d ist ric t c ou rtab u se d its d isc re tio n in d en yin g h is m oti ons to com pel

. One ofthe m any di sc overyr equ e s t s a ti s s ue s o ughtt o c o mpe lHy a t tt o pr o v i de J a me s w i tha l ld o c u me n t s r e l a t i n gt o a l lHy a t te mplo yee s ( i nclu d in g thei r nam es, address es, and tel eph o ne n umb e r s ) wh o r e qu e s ted FM LA l e a v e , ADA l eave , o r an y othe r type ofm edi call eave fro m A ugust 200 2 to the pr ese nt date. A t the ti m e J am es m ade thi s requestthatam ounted to o ver2, 400 l eave s ofabs ence, acc or ding to H yat t. Fur ther, J am es w as not prej ud i ced by the deni alo fthi s o ve rlybr oad r equest, especi al l y in l i ght o fthe f act th at the par ti es had en g ag ed i n e xt en si ve di sc o ve r y . W e ag r ee wi ththe dis tri ct c ourtthatJ am es i s no t e nti tl ed an addit i onal fi sh i ng expedi ti on, i n hopes o ffi nd i ng a new way to r es ha pe th e f ac ts , b ec au se he f ai l ed to obta i n the answ er s h e h a d h o pe d fo rdu r i ngthe p r e v i o us e i g ht een m onths ofdi sco ver y. W e there f or e fi nd no abuse ofdi scr eti on in the dist ri ct cour t’ s deni alo fJ am es’ m oti on t o com pel di sco ver y. W e n ex t a d d re ss th e i s su e o f th e a ss es se d sa n c tio n s in thi s ca se. “[ W ] e r evi ew al ldisc ove rysa ncti ons f orabuse of disc re ti on and wil l uph ol d a dist ri ct court’s deci si on so l on g as it coul d be co nsi dered r eas onabl e. ” Coll i ns v.18 N o. 12

- 1511 Il li nois , 55 4 F
. 3d 693, 69 6 ( 7th C ir. 20 09)
. U nd er R ule 37(a)( 5 )( B ), if a m otion to com p el i s d en ied, a court “m us t after gi v in g a n opp ortu nity to be he ard , requ ire the m ova nt, the att or ney fi l i ng the m ot ion, orbo th to pay the party o r deponent w ho o pp ose d the m oti on i ts r ea so nabl e ex pen se s i nc ur r ed i n o ppo singthe m otion, i ncl ud i ng at torney’s fee s. ” J am es ar gues that he was denie d a m ean i ngful opportunity t o be he ar d because he di d not know th e d i str i ct c ourtwould i ssue sancti ons aga i nst hi m o n J uly27, 20 10, and ther ef or e had no t pr epa r ed a r es po ns e. Aga i n, we di sagr ee . The re cor d i nd i cate s that the di str i ct c ourt t h oughtfully a ttem pted to l ead J am es’ att or ney towards a m ore rea sonab l e an d a ppr o pr i at e appr o ac h t o the di sc o ve ry proce ss, and he decl i ned to f ol l ow on m ult i ple o ccasi o ns . The di st r i ct cour t f o und tha t r athe rtha n us i ng disc ove ryas a too lto uncove r f acts and evid en ce to sup p ort hi s ca se, J am es w as usi ng unre aso nabl e di sco ve r yr eque st s as a wea po n a g ains t H y at t. The dist ri ct c ourti n thi s m att erfully di schar ged i ts obl i g at i o n t o c r aft r ea so nabl e sa nc ti o ns . W e fi nd no ab us e o fdi sc r et i o n a nd r ej ec t J am es’ appealo fthe dist ri ct c ourt ’ s s ancti ons.

I I I . C ONC L US I ON Acco r di ng ly, f o rthe f o r eg o i ngr ea so ns , we affi r m the deci si on o fthe dist ri ct c ourt
.

2- 13- 13