Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Share your feedback on this Case Opinion Preview

Thank You For Submiting Feedback!

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

  • Case Opinion

Painter v. Ill. DOT

Painter v. Ill. DOT

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

October 3, 2017, Argued; December 6, 2017, Decided

No. 16-3187

Opinion

 [*538]  ORDER

Deanna Painter claims that her former employer, the Illinois Department of  [*539]  Transportation ("IDOT"), required her to undergo unnecessary mental-health examinations in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213. The district court entered summary judgment for the IDOT, reasoning that a fact finder would have to conclude from the undisputed evidence that the challenged examinations were "job-related and consistent with business necessity." We affirm the judgment.

Painter began working as an Office Administrator for the IDOT's Division of Traffic Safety in September 2010. After many employees complained about her behavior, the IDOT put Painter on paid administrative leave and required that she submit to a fitness-for-duty examination. Dr. Fletcher, an occupational-medicine specialist, examined Painter and concluded that she could perform the essential functions of her job without [**2]  posing a threat to herself or others. He did note, however, that Painter "displayed some hypomania" and "could be bipolar," so he recommended that she be reevaluated in 45 days. At that reevaluation he deferred making a fitness-for-duty recommendation until Painter could be seen by a mental-health specialist. He referred her to Dr. Karen Lee, a psychologist. Painter met with Dr. Lee, but the psychologist did not send the IDOT a report because Painter retained her for treatment.

Despite Dr. Fletcher's inconclusive reevaluation, the IDOT allowed Painter to resume working in response to a grievance her union filed. She returned in October 2011 but transferred to a different division, still as an Office Administrator. Again she had difficulties with coworkers. Painter used work time to keep a detailed log of her new coworkers' conversations and other actions. She insisted the log was necessary for her to learn why she "was put on leave since no one would tell" her. Painter also sent numerous emails to her new supervisor, Stuart Hunt, often after the workday ended. For example, she emailed Hunt at 8 p.m. on October 30, 2011:

I didn't talk about God . . . other than the one time Mike Fitzgerald asked [**3]  me what I was listening to and I said a Christian radio station talking about blended families. . . . Isabel, for whatever reason one day told me that her mom works at the Marian Center downtown. I told her I had just bought a cross necklace there a couple of months back. It's a Catholic store. Also, she told me her little brothers and sisters had gone to Little Flower. I said I had gone to Little Flower from K—8 and sent my kids there for a little while but couldn't afford the entire time.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

715 Fed. Appx. 538 *; 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 24600 **; 33 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1405; 17 Accom. Disabilities Dec. (CCH) P17-218; 2017 WL 6032504

DEANNA S. PAINTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Defendant-Appellee.

Notice: PLEASE REFER TO FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE RULE 32.1 GOVERNING THE CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS.

Prior History:  [**1] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois. No. 13 C 3002. Richard Mills, Judge.

Painter v. Ill. DOT, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94940 (C.D. Ill., July 20, 2016)

CORE TERMS

coworkers, medical examination, business necessity, emails, contradiction, employees, job-related, recommended, complaints, deposition, log

Business & Corporate Compliance, Disability Discrimination, Scope & Definitions, Discriminatory Conduct, Labor & Employment Law, Defenses, Business Necessity, Remedies, Damages, Evidence, Burdens of Proof, Civil Procedure, Discovery, Methods of Discovery, Depositions, Evidence, Admissibility