Opinion ID: 6221175
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Duration of the Risk

Text: The first factor that the ADA requires us to assess is the duration of the risk. The parties dispute whether the duration of the risk is the length of one seizure or indefinite. The district court relied on E.E.O.C. v. Rexnord Industries, LLC for the proposition that, “[g]enerally speaking, if the risk is not con‐ trolled or controllable, the duration is indefinite and thus would weigh more heavily in favor of a finding of direct threat.” 966 F. Supp. 2d 829, 837 (E.D. Wis. 2013) (collecting Seventh Circuit cases, among others). We recognize that there is contrary nonbinding authority, see, e.g., E.E.O.C. v. Kinney Shoe Corp., 917 F. Supp. 419, 429 (W.D. Va. 1996) (finding that duration of risk of seizure was fleeting), but we agree with the Rexnord proposition, at least as applied here. Dr. Abu‐Aita warned Pontinen that going oﬀ of his medication would put him at an elevated risk of having a seizure, yet he insisted on discontinuing his medication. We find that the duration of the risk is indefinite. This weighs in favor of a direct‐threat find‐ ing. No. 21‐1612 13