Leibas v. Dart

108 F.4th 1021

Irma LEIBAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Thomas J. DART, et al.,Defendants-Appellees.

No. 23-1275

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

Argued March 29, 2024

Decided July 29, 2024

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 1:19-cv-07592 — Rebecca R. Pallmeyer, Chief Judge.

Cass T. Casper, Attorney, Disparti Law Group, P.A., Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Rebecca Gest, Attorney, Office of the Cook County State's Attorney, Chicago, IL, Nazia Hasan, Attorney, Office of the Cook County State's Attorney, Civil Actions Bureau, Chicago, IL, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before Rovner, St. Eve, and Pryor, Circuit Judges.

Rovner, Circuit Judge.

Irma Leibas is employed by the Cook County Department of Corrections ("DOC") as a correctional officer. Due to certain diagnoses that predate her employment with the DOC, Leibas requires accommodations at work, including up to three additional breaks per shift. After the DOC denied Leibas's request for additional breaks, she brought suit alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Leibas does not offer evidence sufficient to create a dispute of material fact that she is a qualified individual under the ADA, we affirm.

I.

The following facts are undisputed and, where disputed, are relayed in the light most favorable to Leibas, against whom summary judgment was granted. The DOC hired Leibas as a correctional officer on May 10, 2010. The DOC is one of three offices within the Cook County Sheriff's office, and it operates one of the largest single site pre-trial detention facilities in the United States. Sheriff Thomas J. Dart is the elected head of the Sheriff's office. Correctional officers are responsible for maintaining the safety and security of the DOC's staff, inmates, and visitors. Neither party disputes that doing so is one of the correctional officers' essential functions.

Security incidents occur regularly in the DOC. Correctional officers must respond to security incidents in their assigned area, and some security incidents might require the response of all correctional officers. Correctional officers must respond to security incidents appropriately so that any threats are quickly and effectively diffused. Failure to do so could result in fatal consequences.

Before the DOC hired her as a correctional officer, Leibas was diagnosed with Scleroderma, Irritable Bowel Syndrome, Lupus, and Raynaud's Syndrome. At times, these conditions flare up. To respond to these flare ups, Leibas sought accommodations from the DOC.

Initially, the DOC accommodated Leibas by putting her on a modified duty assignment at the Visitor Information Center. However, following budget cuts, the DOC was faced with a severe staffing shortage. In response, Human Resources sought to maximize the existing DOC workforce. Specifically, Human Resources sent a letter to all employees in light or modified duty assignments, including Leibas. The letter stated that the recipients were unable to perform the essential functions of their position. The letter asked the recipients to respond in one of three ways: 1) provide updated medical documentation indicating the recipient no longer had work restrictions; 2) request a reasonable accommodation under the ADA; or 3) take a skills assessment to determine whether the recipient qualified for a vacant position at the DOC.

Leibas was on medical leave when she received the letter in 2018. In February of 2019, Leibas briefly returned to full-duty work at the DOC before taking disability leave in March of 2019. Since that time, Leibas has been "off the . . . payroll," and her disability benefits have expired.

On May 29, 2019, Leibas provided an "ADA Accommodation Form" completed by her physician, Dr. Monica Aloman. The form opined about Leibas's ability to perform the essential functions of her position, Leibas's functional limitations, and the accommodations Leibas would require to perform her position's essential functions. Dr. Aloman wrote, "[Leibas] requires more frequent breaks to avoid standing for long periods" and "is unable to stand for long periods without relief/rest." R. 96-10, Exh. 82. The form also stated that Leibas could perform the essential functions of her position if she is "allowed more frequent breaks and rest periods and bathroom breaks, up to three additional times per shift." Id. Leibas completed a similar form. Leibas wrote that she was "unable to stand for long periods without relief/rest," and she requested the same accommodations Dr. Aloman required. Id.

Rebecca Reierson, the Director of Employee Services for Human Resources at the DOC, called and emailed Leibas about her requested accommodations. Leibas asked Reierson to speak to her attorney instead. Following that request, Leibas did not respond to any of Reierson's further communication attempts. On November 11, 2019, Reierson contacted Leibas by email and informed her that no reasonable accommodations existed that would assist Leibas in performing the essential functions of her position.

Leibas subsequently sued the DOC. Leibas alleges that the DOC failed to accommodate her and discriminated against her, in violation of the ADA.¹ The defendants moved for summary judgment before the district court. Initially, the district court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment on Leibas's accommodation and discrimination claims. However, the defendants moved for reconsideration, and the district court invited both parties to supplement the record. Leibas supplemented the record with declarations from herself, her husband, who is also a correctional officer at the DOC, and another correctional officer at the DOC. The defendants supplemented the record with a declaration from Matthew Burke, the Executive Director for the Human Resources Department of the DOC. After reviewing both parties' submissions, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the basis that Leibas is not a qualified individual under the ADA. Leibas appeals, and we affirm.

II.

We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo. In doing so, we examine the record in the light most favorable to Leibas, drawing all reasonable inferences in her favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Yahnke v. Kane County, Ill., 823 F.3d 1066, 1070 (7th Cir. 2016). Summary judgment is appropriate only if there is no genuine dispute of material fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.

To succeed on either of her claims, Leibas must demonstrate that she is a "qualified individual" under the ADA. Castetter v. Dolgencorp, LLC, 953 F.3d 994, 996 (7th Cir. 2020); Brumfield v. City of Chicago, 735 F.3d 619, 631 (7th Cir. 2013). A qualified individual is one who, "with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position." 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8). To determine whether an individual is qualified, we follow a two-step process, evaluating first whether the individual satisfies the necessary prerequisites of the position and then considering whether the individual can perform the essential functions of the position with or without a reasonable accommodation. Bombard v. Fort Wayne Newspapers, 92 F.3d 560, 563 (7th Cir. 1996). The DOC does not allege that Leibas is unqualified for the position, so we look only at step two.

An employer must make reasonable accommodations to allow a qualified individual to perform the essential functions of his or her job. Tate v. Dart, 51 F.4th 789, 793-94 (7th Cir. 2022). However, if an employee's medical restrictions prevent the employee from performing an essential job function with reasonable accommodation, the employee is not a qualified individual. See id. at 794. We review the record in the light most favorable to Leibas, but it is up to Leibas to provide sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact that she can perform the essential functions of her position. Bombard, 92 F.3d at 562-63.

There is no disagreement that maintaining the safety and security of the DOC is an essential function of the correctional officer position, so the only question for us is whether Leibas has put forth sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that she is a qualified individual capable of performing that function. This depends on the particular circumstances of this case and the needs of this employer.

Prisons are a uniquely violent and unpredictable environment, a sentiment that we have recognized time and again. See e.g., Tate, 51 F.4th at 799; Miller v. Illinois Dep't of Corr., 107 F.3d 483, 485 (7th Cir. 1997). Uncontroverted record evidence demonstrates that violent incidents happen regularly at DOC facilities. R. 96-2, ¶ 14. Corrections officers are responsible for responding to these incidents, and they must always be prepared to respond as needed to unpredictable threats. Some scenarios may require that every correctional officer respond to one location at one time.

Over the course of litigation, Leibas has described her restrictions and symptoms differently. In the accommodations paperwork Leibas submitted to Human Resources, Leibas stated she was "unable to stand for long periods without relief/rest." R. 96-10, Exh. 82. At her deposition, Leibas testified that she agreed with her doctor's statement, which included the same restrictions. R. 96-10 at 52-53. At summary judgment, Leibas agreed that "[w]hen her conditions flare up she experiences extreme fatigue and needs to rest and limit her movement." R. 109 ¶ 91. On reconsideration, however, Leibas suggested that she only needed additional breaks to go to the restroom, and that she was able to stand for long periods of time. R. 134, ¶¶ 2, 14. Although Leibas claims on appeal that she has no issue standing for long periods and only needs more frequent breaks to go to the bathroom, Leibas Br. 26-28, an employer is not...