Court erred in judgment, sanctions order

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned summary judgment in favor of a company on a former employee's suit for disability discrimination, finding there is a genuine issue as to whether the company regarded the employee as disabled when it fired him.

In Frank Brunker v. Schwan's Home Service, Inc., No. 07-3183, Frank Brunker sued his former employer, Schwan's Home Service Inc., for disability discrimination and failure to accommodate in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Route manager Brunker began experiencing shaking in his hands, slurred speech, dizziness, and other impairments leading Schwan's to place him on temporary disability leave. Brunker later returned to light-duty work in which he rode along with another employee because he was restricted from driving. He also told his supervisor that he wanted to go to the Mayo Clinic for more tests because he may have multiple sclerosis.

Before he left for the clinic, Brunker was written up several times for failing to adhere to the dress code, failing to run a rescheduled route, and other issues. After he returned from the clinic - where he was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis - he was fired for unsatisfactory performance and for being unable to perform essential job duties. The termination form was backdated to the day Brunker left for the clinic.

The trial court denied Brunker's request for various information in discovery, including personnel files, financial information, and that his former supervisor - who accused Brunker of being dishonest - reveal the dishonest conduct that led to his firing. The court imposed sanctions on Brunker on his motions to compel on grounds of irrelevancy and overbreadth, ruled Brunker couldn't be considered disabled, and granted summary judgment for Schwan's.

The trial court was correct in finding Brunker wasn't disabled because he only had intermittent difficulties in major life activity. But, his evidence was enough to show Schwan's regarded him as disabled, creating a genuine issue as to whether the company treated him as disabled, wrote Judge Ilana Rovner. The Circuit Court upheld the grant of summary judgment for Schwan's on Brunker's reasonable-accommodation claim because evidence shows they did accommodate him by providing him short-term disability and having a driver help him on his routes.

Brunker wasn't entitled to the company's financial records, records of employees who requested light-duty work, or those of route managers, wrote the judge, but the trial court should have allowed his motion to compel his former supervisor to explain what dishonest conduct led to his firing. Discovery also should have been allowed on the company's anti-discrimination training, as it was relevant to the question of punitive damages, wrote Judge Rovner.

Brunker's motions to compel discovery weren't unjustified, so sanctions were inappropriate.

"In addition, Brunker's request for information about whether Schwan's disciplined other employees who failed to follow its dress code or to keep accurate route books was justified because, despite Schwan's promise that in its motion for summary judgment it would not rely on Brunker's discipline for these offenses, it did so anyway," she wrote.

Schwan's even conceded the bulk of Brunker's requests were substantially justified. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion and Circuit Rule 36 applies on remand.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  2. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  3. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  4. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.

  5. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well