Opinion ID: 4454049
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: ADEA and ADA Claims Against Kenco

Text: The ADEA prohibits an employer from refusing to hire a person who is 40 or older because of his age. 29 U.S.C. No. 18-3206 9 § 623(a)(1). McCurry’s age-discrimination claim is based on Kenco’s decision to hire Varvel as the human-resources manager. McCurry was 52 when Kenco hired Varvel, who was 17 years younger than she. We have already explained that McCurry did not apply for this job and that Varvel was hired because she was far more qualified. There is no evidence to support an age-discrimination claim. The ADA prohibits an employer from discriminating against a qualified person on the basis of disability. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). McCurry argued below that Kenco violated the ADA when her COBRA health-insurance costs changed after the layoff and she did not receive COBRA open-enrollment paperwork.3 It’s not clear how problems with COBRA health insurance can be an ADA violation. Regardless, the judge granted summary judgment for Kenco because a third-party administrator was responsible for the laid-off employees’ COBRA-related benefits. McCurry did not challenge this ruling—or even mention the ADA claim—in her opening brief on appeal, raising it only in her reply brief. That’s a waiver. Estate of Moreland v. Dieter, 395 F.3d 747, 759 (7th Cir. 2005).