Heatherly v. Portillo's Hot Dogs, Inc.
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100965, 2013 WL 3790909, 958 F.Supp.2d 913 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employee who fails to return to work after their approved leave expires cannot establish a prima facie case for pregnancy or disability discrimination because they are not meeting the employer's legitimate job expectations. Furthermore, an employer does not fail to accommodate a disability under the ADAAA when the employee fails to provide specific documentation of the work limitations that require accommodation.
Facts:
- Cynthia Heatherly was employed by Portillo's Hot Dogs, Inc. and discovered she was pregnant in September 2009.
- In January 2010, Heatherly submitted a doctor's note to Portillo's restricting her to 'light duties' and shifts of no more than 8 hours.
- On February 16, 2010, Heatherly began FMLA leave due to complications related to her pregnancy.
- After giving birth, Heatherly spoke with Portillo's on May 11, 2010, and was informed that her leave would expire on June 3, 2010, and she needed to return to work on that date.
- Two days later, Portillo's sent Heatherly a letter confirming the June 3 return-to-work date, which Heatherly acknowledged receiving.
- Heatherly did not report to work on June 3, 2010, nor did she contact Portillo's to explain her absence.
- On June 8, 2010, Portillo's sent Heatherly a letter terminating her employment for failing to return to work as scheduled.
Procedural Posture:
- Cynthia Heatherly filed a charge of discrimination with the Illinois Department of Human Rights and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
- After receiving a Right to Sue letter from the EEOC, Heatherly filed a complaint against Portillo's in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, a federal trial court.
- The complaint alleged two counts: sex (pregnancy) discrimination in violation of Title VII, and disability discrimination and failure to accommodate in violation of the ADAAA.
- Portillo's filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, asking the court to dismiss both of Heatherly's claims without a full trial.
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's termination of an employee for failing to return to work after her approved leave expired constitute sex discrimination under Title VII or disability discrimination and failure to accommodate under the ADAAA?
Opinions:
Majority - Leinenweber, J.
No. The employer's actions do not constitute unlawful discrimination because the termination was based on a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason—the employee's failure to return to work—and the employer reasonably accommodated the only medical restrictions of which it was officially notified. For the Title VII pregnancy discrimination claim, Heatherly cannot establish a prima facie case because she was not meeting Portillo’s legitimate job expectations at the time of her termination. Her failure to report to work on her scheduled return date was a violation of company attendance policy, rendering her prior satisfactory job performance irrelevant. For the ADAAA disability discrimination claim, even assuming her condition qualified as a disability, Heatherly failed to show that Portillo's proffered reason for termination was a pretext for discrimination. Regarding the failure to accommodate claim, Portillo's did accommodate the restrictions in her doctor's note (light duty, 8-hour shifts). It is the employee's responsibility to inform the employer of specific work limitations, and Heatherly never provided medical documentation stating she could not work outside; therefore, Portillo's had no duty to accommodate that preference.
Analysis:
This case underscores the importance of employee adherence to established leave policies and the critical role of clear communication in the accommodation process. The decision provides a strong defense for employers who terminate employees for a clear violation of policy, such as failing to return from leave, even if the employee is in a protected class. It reinforces the legal principle that the burden is on the employee to provide specific medical documentation for any requested accommodations under the ADAAA. An employer is not required to guess an employee's needs or provide an employee's preferred accommodation, only a reasonable one based on the information provided.
Unlock the full brief for Heatherly v. Portillo's Hot Dogs, Inc.