Fox v. Adams & Assocs., Inc.

• Decision Date: 06 February 2020
• Docket Number: No. 1-18-2470,1-18-2470
• Citation: 445 Ill.Dec. 342,166 N.E.3d 772,2020 IL App (1st) 182470
• Parties: Carla FOX, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ADAMS AND ASSOCIATES, INC., and Christine Sanchez, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

2020 IL App (1st) 182470

166 N.E.3d 772

445 Ill.Dec. 342

Carla FOX, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.ADAMS AND ASSOCIATES, INC., and Christine Sanchez, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 1-18-2470

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Fourth Division.

Opinion filed February 6, 2020

William M. Walsh, of Law Office of William M. Walsh, LLC, of Chicago, for appellant.

Elizabeth M. Bartolucci and Kristine S. Phillips, of O'Hagan Meyer LLC, of Chicago, for appellees.

JUSTICE LAMPKIN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 Plaintiff, Carla Fox, filed a complaint against defendants, her former employer Adams and Associates, Inc. (Adams Inc.), and its corporate officer, Christine Sanchez, alleging disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) ( 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (2012) ) and the Illinois Human Rights Act (Rights Act) ( 775 ILCS 5/1-101 et seq. (West 2016)) and claims of retaliatory discharge and tortious interference with employment expectancy. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants, finding that (1) Fox was not a qualified individual with a disability and (2) there was no genuine issue of fact that (a) Fox could not perform the functions of the job due to her disability, (b) Adams Inc. terminated her employment due to her medical inability to work, and (c) Adams Inc.'s corporate officer did not act with malice and without justification to secure the termination of Fox's employment.

¶ 2 On appeal, Fox argues that (1) she was a qualified individual with a disability because her request for a multi-month leave of absence was not per se unreasonable, (2) she did not request an indefinite amount of time for her leave of absence, (3) a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding whether defendants' adverse actions were based on Fox's exercise of workers' compensation benefits, and (4) the evidence showed that Sanchez acted in a malicious or unjustified manner to secure the termination of Fox's employment.

¶ 3 For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.¹

¶ 4 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 5 According to the pleadings and depositions filed in this matter, Adams Inc. contracted with the United States Department of Labor to provide education and vocational training services to disadvantaged young adults at facilities throughout the country. Each facility had a wellness department that provided health-related services to students. Fox was a manager of the wellness department at the Joliet, Illinois, facility from 2003 until she was fired on January 20, 2015. Prior to her termination, her job duties involved overseeing the day-to-day operations of the wellness department and supervising the physicians, dentists, nurses, mental health professionals, and other staff who provided the services. Fox was required to have an active registered-nurse license and knowledge of the Department of Labor's and Adams Inc.'s policies and procedures. To competently perform her job duties, Fox needed to be able to focus and concentrate when carrying out required tasks; understand and recall important details, including student medication procedures; employ sound judgment, time management, and delegation skills; effectively articulate thoughts and ideas; and identify problems, analyze causes, and evaluate appropriate solutions prior to taking or recommending action.

¶ 6 There were always at least 200 students at the Joliet facility. Before students arrived at the facility, staff created a file to assess their wellness needs. Many students required daily care, which was administered by the wellness department. As a licensed registered nurse, Fox was responsible for overseeing the staff who administered medication to the students and was required to comply with local and federal guidelines for administering medication and maintaining medical records.

¶ 7 At all relevant times, Fox reported to her direct supervisor, Anneice Owens, who was the facility's director of finance and administration. Owens reported to defendant Sanchez, who was the facility's director. Adams Inc. granted Fox several accommodations prior to the events at issue in this appeal, including (1) a handicap parking space in May 2000, (2) a 3-month leave of absence for a disability in April 2011, (3) a 2½ -month leave of absence for a medical condition, starting in July 2011, and (4) a 1-year intermittent leave of absence, starting in April 2012.

¶ 8 On October 31, 2013, Fox suffered a work-related injury in an automobile collision and went on a workers' compensation leave of absence. She received a three month leave of absence and returned to work on March 3, 2014, working half-days pursuant to her doctor's restriction. During her leave, Adams Inc. implemented a policy change that no longer allowed employees to skip their lunch hour and leave work one hour early. On March 20, 2014, Fox sent an e-mail to the Adams Inc. human resources manager confirming that Fox had been notified while she was on leave that Adams Inc. was no longer able to accommodate her taking her lunch hour at 3 p.m., before the end of her shift at 4 p.m. This change interfered with Fox's ability to timely arrive at her college courses. On March 27, 2014, Adams Inc. sent Fox a letter informing her that as of April 11, 2014, it would no longer be able to accommodate her half-day work restriction. Thereafter, Fox was involved in two disciplinary actions that resulted in formal written warnings by Adams Inc.

¶ 9 Regarding the first action, a group of students and their parents complained to Adams Inc.'s regional office about an incident that occurred on Saturday, April 19, 2014. Sanchez spoke with the students the following Monday and learned that Fox had told the students, some of whom were under 18 years of age, that they were going to the wedding of the pastor of the church Fox attended and Fox wanted them to partake in and enjoy the event. When the students arrived, Fox directed them to set up tables and chairs and prepare and serve food for the wedding guests. The students were left unsupervised for several hours during the event. They were not trained in culinary arts, and one student was burned by a hot dish. Fox did not allow the students to eat until after all the wedding guests had eaten, and by then the little food that remained was cold. Moreover, in violation of the facility's policy, the students were driven back to the facility in private vehicles. The students told Sanchez they felt that Fox had used them for unpaid labor. The students also complained to Owens about the incident.

¶ 10 Fox told Sanchez that the wedding was "community service" for the students, and Fox did not see any error in her conduct. Sanchez, however, believed that Fox's conduct was egregious, particularly because some of the students were underprivileged minors and Fox took advantage of them as free labor for the benefit of her friend.

¶ 11 Adams Inc. investigated the incident and concluded that (1) Fox's use of the students for her friend's wedding was improper and (2) Fox had violated Adams Inc.'s safety policies by failing to ensure that the students were supervised and transported using the facility's vehicles. Although this was a terminable offense, Sanchez and Owens exercised their discretion and instead issued an April 30, 2014, formal written warning to Fox for her improper use of student resources. The warning stated that Fox's failure to perform satisfactorily as delineated in this warning would result in further disciplinary action up to and including recommendation of a termination review of her employment.

¶ 12 Regarding the second disciplinary action, Sanchez was informed on May 1, 2014, that Fox had failed to arrange accommodations and safety precautions for a new student with significant disabilities, i.e. , he had a prosthetic leg, one of his arms was significantly shorter than the other, and he used a colostomy bag

. Specifically, Fox had failed to convey this necessary information to certain staff members and actively manage or follow-up on the needs of the student, who had begun two trade classes that required heavy lifting, which was potentially dangerous to him and his classmates. Fox asserted that the student should not have been treated as a disabled child because he did not "consider himself disabled." Fox also asserted that Sanchez should have been aware of the student's visibly obvious disabilities and probably had been informed of them during certain meetings, which Fox admittedly did not attend.

¶ 13 Adams Inc. investigated this incident and determined that Fox failed to ensure that proper precautions were in place and to communicate the student's disabilities to other facility personnel before the student arrived at the facility. Moreover, Fox should have provided this information to personnel despite the obviousness of the student's disabilities and regardless of whether he believed himself to be disabled. Adams Inc. concluded that Fox's duty as the wellness manager required her to prepare the student for the campus and then manage his wellness once he was admitted. As a result of this incident, on May 2, 2014, Adams Inc. issued Fox a final written warning, which stated that Fox's failure to perform satisfactorily as delineated in this warning would result in further disciplinary action up to and including recommendation of a termination review of her employment.

¶ 14 Fox was granted an intermittent leave of absence to receive physical therapy. This leave started June 6, 2014, and spanned a seven-month period.

¶ 15 On October 24, 2014, Fox submitted to Adams Inc. an internal written complaint against Sanchez. Fox's complaint primarily concerned a verbal disagreement between her and Sanchez on October 22, 2014, about whether a certain student could remain at the facility pursuant to the rules of the Department of Labor. Fox alleged that Sanchez had yelled at her during that verbal disagreement. Fox also alleged that Sanchez...