Whether an employer's termination of an employee who has requested medical accommodations and taken intermittent leave constitutes unlawful discrimination under the Family and Medical Leave Act and Americans with Disabilities Act

No question identified. : Case: 24-1211 Document: 00714486444 Filed: 12/12/2024 Pages: 3 (3 of 5) NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with FED. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 CERTIFIED COPY g MIPEALS Teak Case % Submitted November 20, 2024" WAAC EE Decided November 20, 2024 < F es es ey inevttedd Cs A S Before They cadet Oo, Court ot/Appeals forte . . Seventh Citeuse_* FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge THOMAS L. KIRSCTL I, Circuit fudge JOHN Z. LEE, Circuit Judge No. 24-1211 TRENT NELSON, Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. v. No. 21-cv-0654-bh1 URSA MAJOR CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee. Brett H. Ludwig, Judge. ORDER Trent Nelson, a truck driver who suffers from polyneuropathy and diabetic neuropathy, sued his former employer, Ursa Major Corporation, for violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 2601-2654, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 12101-12213. The district court entered summary “We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not significantly aid the court. FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C). Case: 24-1211 Document: 00714486444 Filed: 12/12/2024 Pages: 3 (4 of 5) No. 24-1211 Page 2 judgment against Nelson, concluding that no reasonable jury could find that Ursa violated his rights under either act. We affirm. We begin with a word about this case’s procedural background. At summary judgment, the district court accepted Ursa’s version of the facts because Nelson failed to comply with Rule 56 of the Local Rules for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. See Robinson v. Waterman, 1 F Ath 480, 483 (7th Cir. 2021). He did not, for instance, file a brief in opposition to Ursa’s motion for summary judgment, nor did he respond to Ursa’s proposed statement of facts. We likewise rely on Ursa’s factual narrative to the extent it is supported by admissible evidence. See Gosey v. Aurora Med. Ctr., 749 F3d. 603, 605 (7th Cir. 2014). We do, however, present those facts in the light most favorable to Nelson, the nonmoving party. See Moore v. W. IIL. Corr. Ctr., 89 F.4th 582, 590 (7th Cir. 2023). Nelson was diagnosed with polyneuropathy and diabetic neuropathy before being hired as a truck driver for Ursa in 2017. He drove for the company 65 hours a week with the aid of an accessory knob on his steering wheel that helped alleviate symptoms. In mid-2019, Nelson, needing medical leave because of his condition, had a physician prepare a request that he be permitted to work limited hours and take intermittent leave over the next two to three months. From June 7 to August 11, 2019, Ursa permitted Nelson to take 48 days of unpaid leave. When he returned to work, his hours were reduced consistent with his doctor’s recommendation. Apart from his doctor’s documented request, Nelson asked his manager to let him start work 90 minutes later every day so that he could exercise. Nelson’s manager agreed, but Nelson says that his manager (and others) berated him for tardy arrivals, leading him to ask for his manager’s approval in writing. His manager agreed to do so, but Nelson was fired later that day, before the notation could be added. Ursa justified Nelson’s discharge on a pattern of driving mishaps and behavioral problems, including a collision with another trailer and complaints from a dispatcher about Nelson’s angry outbursts. Nelson then sued Ursa for violating the FMLA and ADA by unlawfully interfering with the exercise of his rights, retaliating against him, and failing to provide him with reasonable accommodations. See 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 2601-2654; 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 12101-12213. Case: 24-1211 Document: 00714486444 Filed: 12/12/2024 Pages: 3 (5 of 5) No. 24-1211 Page 3 Ursa moved for summary judgment and notified Nelson of his right to respond to the summary-j