## Facts

- John Byrne worked as Avon’s only stationary engineer on the night shift and had been well regarded for several years.
- In early November 1998, a coworker reported finding Byrne asleep in a carpenter’s shop used at times as a break area.
- Security logs showed Byrne repeatedly entering the shop during his shift; Avon installed a camera.
- The camera showed Byrne spending multiple hours of shifts reading or sleeping in the shop, including most of one shift asleep with the lights off.
- Avon managers attempted to meet with Byrne on November 16–17; he left work early, reported feeling ill, and said he would be out the rest of the week.
- Byrne’s sister told Avon he was “very sick”; a manager later reached Byrne, who spoke incoherently but agreed to attend a meeting on November 17 and did not appear.
- Avon discharged Byrne for failing to attend the meeting and for sleeping on the job.
- Around that time Byrne was suffering severe depression with psychotic features, including hallucinations and a suicide attempt; he received treatment for about two months and then was able to return to work.
- Avon declined to reinstate him; Byrne sued under the ADA and FMLA, and the district court granted Avon summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether Byrne was a “qualified individual with a disability” under the ADA at the time of discharge, and whether the ADA required Avon to excuse serious work misconduct caused by his mental illness.
2. Whether Avon violated the FMLA by terminating Byrne without providing FMLA leave or reinstatement where Byrne’s illness impaired his ability to work and arguably his ability to give notice.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Avon.
- The court held Byrne was not a qualified individual under the ADA at the time of discharge because he could not perform the essential functions of his job, even with accommodation.
- The court held the ADA did not require Avon to overlook dischargeable misconduct (sleeping on duty and failing to attend a required meeting) even if the misconduct stemmed from a disability.
- The court held the FMLA did not bar Avon from terminating Byrne for on-the-job misconduct and did not require retroactive treatment of his conduct as protected leave.

## Legal Principles

- ADA coverage requires that, at the time of the challenged action, the employee can perform the job’s essential functions with or without reasonable accommodation.
- An employer may discipline or discharge an employee for serious workplace misconduct that would warrant the same action for a nondisabled employee, even if the misconduct is caused by a disability.
- Subsequent recovery does not retroactively convert a valid discharge into unlawful disability discrimination.
- The FMLA protects the right to take qualifying leave and to reinstatement after qualifying leave, but it does not immunize an employee from discipline for on-duty misconduct.
- FMLA protections generally depend on adequate notice sufficient to trigger leave obligations; the statute does not require excusing work-rule violations as a substitute for leave.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit upheld Avon’s decision to terminate Byrne, concluding that neither the ADA nor the FMLA required the employer to retain or reinstate an employee who, during the relevant period, could not perform essential job functions and engaged in serious on-the-job misconduct, even where the misconduct was linked to a severe mental health condition.


Byrne v. Avon Prods., Inc., 328 F.3d 379 (7th Cir. 2003)