Felix v. Wisconsin Department of Transportation
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 12462, 32 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1576, 828 F. 3d 560 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer does not violate the Rehabilitation Act by discharging an employee for disruptive or threatening conduct that renders them unqualified for their position, even if that conduct is caused by a disability. An employer may rely on the employee's past conduct and a subsequent medical evaluation to determine the employee is no longer qualified, without needing to satisfy the requirements of the 'direct threat' affirmative defense.
Facts:
- Eileen Felix was a long-term employee of the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) who suffered from several mental health disabilities, including PTSD and an anxiety disorder.
- Despite being a generally good employee, Felix had ongoing issues with financial accountability, leading to unsatisfactory performance reviews and placement on a performance improvement plan.
- On April 18, 2013, after a minor interaction with a coworker, Felix experienced a severe panic attack in the public lobby of the DMV office.
- During the attack, Felix was screaming, crying, kicking on the floor, had scratches and cuts on her wrists, and made statements such as 'the knives were too dull' and 'I just want to die'.
- Emergency personnel were summoned, and Felix was transported to the hospital.
- WisDOT required Felix to undergo an independent medical examination (IME) with Dr. Daniel Burbach to evaluate her fitness for duty.
- Dr. Burbach's IME report concluded that Felix remained at an 'increased risk for potentially violent behavior toward self and others' and was unable to safely resume her position.
- Based on the April 18 incident and Dr. Burbach's report, WisDOT terminated Felix's employment, concluding she was unfit for duty.
Procedural Posture:
- Eileen Felix sued the Wisconsin Department of Transportation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, alleging discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act.
- The defendant, WisDOT, filed a motion for summary judgment.
- The district court (trial court) granted summary judgment in favor of WisDOT, finding that Felix was discharged for her behavior and the safety risk it posed, not solely because of her disability.
- Felix, as the appellant, appealed the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an employer violate the Rehabilitation Act by discharging an employee for disruptive and threatening conduct that stemmed from a disability, when the employer determines based on that conduct and a subsequent medical evaluation that the employee is not qualified for the job and poses a safety risk?
Opinions:
Majority - Rovner, Circuit Judge.
No. An employer does not violate the Rehabilitation Act by discharging an employee for engaging in disruptive, threatening, or otherwise unacceptable workplace conduct, even when that conduct is caused by a disability. The court reasoned that the Rehabilitation Act only protects 'qualified' individuals, and an employee who engages in such behavior is no longer qualified for their position. This case is governed by the framework established in Palmer v. Circuit Ct. of Cook Cnty., which allows termination based on the conduct itself, rather than the 'direct threat' affirmative defense, which applies to potential future harm based on qualification standards. Felix's actual, past conduct—hysterical screaming, suicidal gestures, and public disruption—was so severe that WisDOT was justified in viewing her as unqualified. The employer's decision to seek a fitness-for-duty evaluation before termination was a reasonable step and did not obligate it to use the 'direct threat' framework. WisDOT was entitled to rely on the IME's conclusion that Felix remained a risk, and there was no evidence that this reason was a pretext for disability discrimination.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the distinction between an employee's disability status and their disability-related conduct. It clarifies that when an employee's actions are sufficiently dangerous or disruptive, an employer may terminate them for the conduct itself under the 'otherwise qualified' prong of a disability discrimination claim. This holding gives employers more latitude to address safety concerns stemming from actual misconduct without bearing the heavy burden of proof required by the 'direct threat' affirmative defense. The case signals to future litigants that the Rehabilitation Act and ADA do not provide a shield for all workplace misconduct, even if it is a manifestation of a disability.
