ILNews

Dairy Queen did not discriminate against blind employee

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of a firm that operates Dairy Queens in Indianapolis on a former employee’s claim the employer violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Joshua Bunn, who is legally blind, worked exclusively in the “Expo” department in the restaurant, in which employees deliver food to dine-in customers and keep the store and dining area clean. Bunn’s manager, Larry Johnson, originally had Bunn move around to the different departments to work, as is done with other employees, but he found Bunn could best perform his duties in the Expo department with minimal accommodation.

Bunn quit in February 2011, telling Johnson he thought he could work more hours with another employer. Bunn was working full time, but his hours became reduced during the winter months. He also had served a 10-day suspension in November 2010 due to insubordinate conduct toward a supervisor.

After he quit, he sued Khoury Enterprises, the firm that owned the Dairy Queen, alleging the restaurant failed to accommodate his disability as required by law and it subjected him to illegal disparate treatment when it reduced his scheduled hours in the winter months. The District Court ruled in favor of Khoury Enterprises.

In Joshua Bunn v. Khoury Enterprises Inc., 13-2292, the 7th Circuit affirmed. The judges found his failure-to-accommodate claims fell short because his employer did reasonably accommodate his disability. His disparate treatment claim failed too because Bunn did not introduce sufficient evidence to create a triable issue of material fact under either the direct or indirect method of proof. The undisputed facts show that Khoury Enterprises is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

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. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT