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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT