Discrimination Claims Under the ADA
The ADA prohibits employers from discriminating against disabled employees because of their disability.[1] A disability is defined under the ADA as: (A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of the individual; (B) a record of such an impairment; or (C) being regarded as having such an impairment.[2] The type of “major life activities” that must be substantially limited to fall under the purview of the ADA include, but are not limited to: caring for oneself, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, and working.[3]
A disabled plaintiff can prove disability discrimination by using either the direct or indirect method of proof.[4] Under the direct method, a plaintiff can present either direct or circumstantial evidence to meet its burden.[5] Direct evidence requires an admission by the decision maker that his or her actions were based upon the prohibited animus.[6] How-ever, employers are usually careful not to offer overt remarks revealing discrimination, and circumstantial evidence that allows a jury to infer intentional discrimination is also permissible.[7] The type of circumstantial evidence that a plaintiff may produce to survive summary judgment includes: (1) suspicious timing; (2) ambiguous statements or behavior towards other employees in the protected group; (3) evidence, statistical or otherwise, that similarly situated employees outside of the protected group systematically receive better treatment; and (4) evidence that the employer offered a pretextual reason for an adverse employment action.[8]
Under the indirect method of proof, a plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination by showing that (1) he is disabled under the ADA; (2) he was meeting his employer’s legitimate employment expectations; (3) he suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) similarly situated employees without a disability were treated more favorably.[9] Once a plaintiff has established a prima facie case, the defendant must identify a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its employment decision.[10] If the defendant satisfies this requirement, the plaintiff must then prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant’s reasons are pretextual.[11]
Retaliation Claims Under the ADA
The ADA prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who assert their right under the act to be free from discrimination.[12] Employers are forbidden from retaliating against employees who raise ADA claims regardless of whether the initial claims of discrimination are meritless.[13] As in the discrimination context, a plaintiff can establish a valid case of retaliation using either the direct or indirect method of proof.[14] To establish a case of retaliation under the direct method of proof, a plaintiff must show (1) he engaged in a statutorily protected activity; (2) he suffered an adverse action; and (3) a causal connection between the two.[15] Plaintiffs can also elect to use the indirect, burden-shifting method for retaliation claims, under which the plaintiff must demonstrate that he (1) engaged in protected activity; (2) was performing his job satisfactorily; and (3) was singled out for an adverse employment action that similarly situated employees who did not engage in protected activity did not suffer.[16] Once a plaintiff satisfies his initial burden, the burden then shifts to the defendant to present a non-invidious reason for the adverse employment action. If the defendant meets this burden, the plaintiff must then demonstrate that the defendant’s proffered reason was pretextual.[17]
[1] 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a).
[2] 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1).
[3] 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2).
[4] Robin v. Espo Eng’g Corp., 200 F.3d 1081, 1088 (7th Cir.2000).
[5] Buie v. Quad/Graphics, Inc., 366 F.3d 496, 503 (7th Cir.2004); Bekker v. Humana Health Plan, Inc., 229 F.3d 662, 670 (7th Cir.2000).
[6] Buie, 366 F.3d at 503.
[7] Id.; Luster v. Ill. Dep’t of Corr., No. 09–4066, 2011 WL 2857262, at *5 (7th Cir. July 19, 2011).
[8] Diaz v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc., No. 10–3073, 2011 WL 3437028, at *4 (7th Cir. Aug.8, 2011); Burnell v. Gates Rubber Co., 647 F.3d 704, 708 (7th Cir.2011).
[9] Lloyd v. Swifty Transp., Inc., 552 F.3d 594, 601 (7th Cir.2009); see also McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973) (establishing standard under Title VII of Civil Rights Act).
[10] Rooney v. Koch Air, LLC, 410 F.3d 376, 381 (7th Cir.2005).
[11] Lloyd, 552 F.3d at 601.
[12] 42 U.S.C. § 12203(a).
[13] Squibb v. Mem’l Med. Ctr., 497 F.3d 775, 786 (7th Cir.2007).
[14] Kersting v. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc., 250 F.3d 1109, 1117 (7th Cir.2001).
[15] Casna, 574 F.3d at 426.
[16] Lloyd, 552 F.3d at 601.
[17] See Jasmantas v. Subaru–Isuzu Auto., Inc., 139 F.3d 1155, 1157 (7th Cir.1998).
