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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT