10-1353 EEOC v. AutoZone Inc.

Listen to this article

Employment
ADA; failure to accommodate; limitations on personal care

The district court’s summary judgment ruling in this disability discrimination case must be reversed because a reasonable jury could conclude that the plaintiff’s back injury placed substantial limitations upon his ability to provide selfcare, even though his flare-ups were intermittent or sporadic.

“AutoZone contends that even if Shepherd’s condition was limiting, it was not ‘substantially’ limiting because it was only episodic or sporadic. Relying on our discussion in Brunker, AutoZone asserts that because a broken leg, appendicitis, or isolated bouts of depression did not qualify as disabilities, Shepherd’s episodic flare-ups should not qualify either. We do not agree.

“Shepherd’s impairment in this case, a permanent condition that affected his personal care almost daily, is not comparable to the temporary or sporadic examples we listed in Brunker. The limitations Shepherd faced in his self-care every day or almost every day are not commensurate with the temporary limitations posed by a broken leg or appendicitis, nor were they isolated. AutoZone’s additional reliance on Moore v. Hunt Transport, Inc., 221 F.3d 944 (7th Cir. 2000) is also misplaced. Moore suffered from rheumatoid arthritis, an inflammatory disease of the joints that causes the joints to swell and stiffen and that is prone to intermittent flareups. AutoZone points to our statement that Moore’s ‘infrequent flare-ups . . . [did not] render his condition a disability,’ but Moore’s flare-ups occurred only ‘one or two [times] per year.’ 221 F.3d at 952. Even with generous math, the occurrence of Shepherd’s flare-ups four or five times a week was still greater than the frequency experienced by the plaintiff in Moore by a factor of over one hundred. …

“AutoZone also argues that an employee must provide medical evidence of his or her substantial limitations to satisfy the terms of the ADA. We do not read either the statute or our prior case law as imposing a requirement that the plaintiff provide medical testimony in all cases, or in this one.”

Reversed and remanded.

10-1353 EEOC v. AutoZone Inc.

Central District of Illinois, Gorman, Mag. J., Hamilton, J.

Full Text