## Facts

- Bruce K. Cable, a wheelchair user paralyzed from the waist down, taught electronics at Ivy Tech’s Muncie, Indiana campus under successive one-year contracts beginning in 1989.
- His final contract expired in May 1994; Ivy Tech did not renew it.
- Ivy Tech stated the non-renewal resulted from a reduction in force using neutral, objective criteria to select instructors for release.
- Cable claimed the non-renewal violated the ADA as disability discrimination and retaliation for his advocacy regarding accessibility and disability-related concerns on campus.
- Cable filed bankruptcy under Chapter 7, then filed this ADA action based on pre-petition employment events; the bankruptcy was later converted to Chapter 13, and Cable proceeded as debtor in possession for the benefit of the estate while the Chapter 7 trustee remained named as plaintiff.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Ivy Tech on both ADA claims.
- On appeal, Ivy Tech argued Cable lacked standing to appeal because the Chapter 7 trustee (still named as plaintiff) was the only proper party to prosecute the estate’s claim.

## Issues

1. Whether a Chapter 13 debtor in possession has standing to prosecute and appeal a cause of action that is property of the bankruptcy estate after conversion from Chapter 7.
2. Whether Cable produced sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact on ADA disability discrimination.
3. Whether Cable produced sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact on ADA retaliation.

## Decision

- The court held that a Chapter 13 debtor in possession has standing to file, prosecute, and appeal a chose in action belonging to the estate.
- The court rejected Ivy Tech’s argument that only the (former) Chapter 7 trustee could appeal.
- The court affirmed summary judgment for Ivy Tech on the ADA discrimination claim because Cable did not produce evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could infer that Ivy Tech’s reduction-in-force rationale was pretextual or that disability bias caused the non-renewal.
- The court affirmed summary judgment for Ivy Tech on the ADA retaliation claim because Cable failed to show a sufficient causal connection between protected activity and the non-renewal, particularly in light of Ivy Tech’s stated reduction-in-force reason.

## Legal Principles

- In Chapter 13, the debtor in possession may litigate, including on appeal, causes of action that are property of the bankruptcy estate.
- An employer’s reduction in force supported by neutral, objective selection criteria is a legitimate, non-discriminatory explanation that the plaintiff must rebut with evidence permitting an inference of pretext.
- Evidence of disability advocacy and generalized hostility toward disabled individuals, without a concrete link to the adverse employment decision, may be insufficient to defeat summary judgment on ADA discrimination or retaliation.
- For ADA retaliation, the plaintiff must present evidence supporting an inference that protected activity caused the adverse action.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit held that Cable, as a Chapter 13 debtor in possession, could pursue the estate’s ADA appeal, but it affirmed judgment for Ivy Tech because Cable’s evidence did not support a triable inference of discrimination or retaliation in the contract non-renewal.


Cable v. Ivy Tech State Coll., 200 F.3d 467 (7th Cir. 1999)