Lexplug logoLexplug

Kotwica v. Rose Packing Co., Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
24 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 513, 637 F.3d 744, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 5849 (2011)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An employer does not regard an employee as disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) simply by believing that a physical impairment makes the employee unable to perform one particular job; the employer must perceive the employee as being precluded from a broad class or range of jobs.


Facts:

  • In 1996, Teresa Kotwica began working as a general laborer at Rose Packing Company, a meat packing facility.
  • The general laborer position required all employees to rotate through various physically demanding tasks, including boning, curing, processing, and shipping meat products.
  • Rose Packing had a policy that employees with non-work-related injuries could only return to work with a full medical release and no physical restrictions.
  • In late 2005, Kotwica underwent total hip replacement surgery and took a twelve-week leave of absence.
  • Following her surgery, Kotwica's physician provided a letter stating she was permanently restricted from heavy lifting (over 25 pounds), squatting, crawling, or climbing.
  • Rose Packing's in-house physician evaluated Kotwica and determined she could not complete the required physical ability test, which included lifting fifty pounds.
  • On March 13, 2006, Rose Packing terminated Kotwica's employment in accordance with its return-to-work policy.
  • During the termination meeting, a company nurse told Kotwica her restriction only precluded her from the general laborer job and that her other skills would allow her to easily find another job.

Procedural Posture:

  • Teresa Kotwica filed a single-count complaint against Rose Packing Company in federal district court, alleging disability discrimination in violation of the ADA.
  • The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
  • The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Rose Packing, finding that Kotwica had not established that she was a 'qualified individual with a disability' under the ADA.
  • Kotwica, as the appellant, filed a timely appeal of the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, with Rose Packing as the appellee.

Locked

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 Americans with Disabilities Act by terminating an employee with permanent medical restrictions when the employer believes those restrictions prevent the employee from performing her specific job, but does not believe the restrictions substantially limit her ability to work in a broad class of jobs?


Opinions:

Majority - Cudahy, Circuit Judge.

No. An employer does not violate the ADA by terminating an employee due to physical restrictions specific to one job if the employer does not perceive the employee as being unable to perform a broad class of jobs. To be protected under the ADA, a plaintiff must be a 'qualified individual with a disability.' Kotwica failed to establish this because she did not have an actual disability (by her own admission), a 'record of' a substantially limiting impairment, or show that Rose Packing 'regarded her as' having one. The critical failure was on the 'regarded as' prong. For an employer to regard an employee as disabled, it must believe the employee's impairment substantially limits the major life activity of working, meaning it disqualifies them from a class or range of jobs, not just a single, particular job. The evidence showed Rose Packing believed Kotwica's restrictions only prevented her from performing the specific, physically demanding general laborer position. The nurse's comments at the termination meeting confirmed that the company believed Kotwica was still capable of working in many other types of jobs, thus defeating her claim that she was 'regarded as' disabled.



Analysis:

This decision reinforces the high evidentiary burden on plaintiffs claiming protection under the 'regarded as' disabled prong of the ADA. It clarifies that an employer's conclusion that an employee cannot perform one specific, physically demanding job is not, by itself, sufficient to show the employer perceived the employee as substantially limited in the major life activity of working. The case underscores the distinction between being unable to do a particular job and being unable to work in a broad class of jobs, making it more difficult for employees in physically unique roles to win 'regarded as' claims. This precedent requires plaintiffs to produce objective evidence that the employer held a broad, negative view of their overall employment capabilities.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Kotwica v. Rose Packing Co., Inc. (2011)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"