ILNews

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.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Living in South Bend, I travel to Michigan a lot. Virtually every gas station sells cold beer there. Many sell the hard stuff too. Doesn't seem to be a big deal there.

  2. Mr. Ricker, how foolish of you to think that by complying with the law you would be ok. Don't you know that Indiana is a state that welcomes monopolies, and that Indiana's legislature is the one entity in this state that believes monopolistic practices (such as those engaged in by Indiana Association of Beverage Retailers) make Indiana a "business-friendly" state? How can you not see this????

  3. Actually, and most strikingly, the ruling failed to address the central issue to the whole case: Namely, Black Knight/LPS, who was NEVER a party to the State court litigation, and who is under a 2013 consent judgment in Indiana (where it has stipulated to the forgery of loan documents, the ones specifically at issue in my case)never disclosed itself in State court or remediated the forged loan documents as was REQUIRED of them by the CJ. In essence, what the court is willfully ignoring, is that it is setting a precedent that the supplier of a defective product, one whom is under a consent judgment stipulating to such, and under obligation to remediate said defective product, can: 1.) Ignore the CJ 2.) Allow counsel to commit fraud on the state court 3.) Then try to hide behind Rooker Feldman doctrine as a bar to being held culpable in federal court. The problem here is the court is in direct conflict with its own ruling(s) in Johnson v. Pushpin Holdings & Iqbal- 780 F.3d 728, at 730 “What Johnson adds - what the defendants in this suit have failed to appreciate—is that federal courts retain jurisdiction to award damages for fraud that imposes extrajudicial injury. The Supreme Court drew that very line in Exxon Mobil ... Iqbal alleges that the defendants conducted a racketeering enterprise that predates the state court’s judgments ...but Exxon Mobil shows that the Rooker Feldman doctrine asks what injury the plaintiff asks the federal court to redress, not whether the injury is “intertwined” with something else …Because Iqbal seeks damages for activity that (he alleges) predates the state litigation and caused injury independently of it, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not block this suit. It must be reinstated.” So, as I already noted to others, I now have the chance to bring my case to SCOTUS; the ruling by Wood & Posner is flawed on numerous levels,BUT most troubling is the fact that the authors KNOW it's a flawed ruling and choose to ignore the flaws for one simple reason: The courts have decided to agree with former AG Eric Holder that national banks "Are too big to fail" and must win at any cost-even that of due process, case precedent, & the truth....Let's see if SCOTUS wants a bite at the apple.

  4. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  5. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

ADVERTISEMENT