Opinion ID: 2709013
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Termination Date

Text: The district court relied on our holding in Hedberg v. Indiana Bell Tel. Co., Inc., 47 F.3d 928, 932–33 (7th Cir. 1995), to find that C&M did not have the requisite knowledge to fire Spurling “because of” her disability. Citing that case, the district court reasoned that an employer who fires an employee without knowledge of her disability relies on other, non-disability related, grounds. It determined that C&M fired Spurling on April 15 and found that C&M’s lack of knowledge regarding Spurling’s disability obviated the need to decide whether she was actually disabled. The district court’s reliance on Hedberg as analogous to this case is misplaced. Hedberg involved a restructuring of a company, in which layoffs and firings were inevitable and based on a neutral score given to employees. Hedberg received a poor score, which he attributed to his disability, but Hedberg’s employers had no knowledge of his disability when they made their final decision to terminate his employment. Hedberg stands for the well-established principle that an employee cannot hold an employer liable under the ADA if the employer has no knowledge of the employee’s disability. 29 C.F.R. app. § 1630.9 (“[A]n employer would not be expected to accommodate disabilities of which it is unaware.”); see also James v. Hyatt Regency Chi., 707 F.3d 775, 783 (7th Cir. 2013); Beck v. Univ. of Wis. Bd. of Regents, 75 F.3d 1130, 1134 (7th Cir. 1996); Hedberg, 47 F.3d at 932. But that is not the case here. The actual issue in this case is whether Bellant’s April 15 email sufficed to terminate Spurling. If it did, she was terminated before C&M knew of her disability. But if it did not, No. 13-1708 9 C&M did not fire her until after learning of it. We have adopted an “unequivocal notice of termination” test to determine the date that an employee has been terminated. Dvorak, 289 F.3d at 486. It states that “termination occurs when the employer shows, by acts or words, clear intention to dispense with the employee’s services.” Id. There are two prongs to the test, both of which must be satisfied to fix the date of termination. “First, there must be a final, ultimate, nontentative decision to terminate the employee … . Second, the employer must give the employee ‘unequivocal’ notice of its final termination decision.” Flannery v. Recording Indus. Ass’n of Am., 354 F.3d 632, 637 (7th Cir. 2004). C&M’s April 15 email may have begun the investigation into terminating Spurling, but it certainly did not manifest a clear intention to dispense with her services. Nor was the decision to terminate her ever communicated to her prior to April 28. Spurling was technically suspended pending a termination decision on April 15, not terminated outright. Indeed, Bellant informed Spurling that she could present new information that may be ‘relevant to our deliberation,’ which she did. After Spurling informed C&M that she might have a medical condition affecting her work, Bellant gave her ADA paperwork to be filled out by her doctor; it would seem as though C&M began to engage in the interactive process with Spurling. When C&M learned of her disability, however, it chose to take the “aggressive approach” and terminate her. This occurred on April 28, which is the date that her actual termination took place and when she received her unequivocal notice. Thus, Spurling was fired after C&M knew that she had a medical condition covered under the ADA. 10 No. 13-1708