## Facts

- Phillis Dewitt, a registered nurse and later clinical manager at Proctor Hospital, supervised nursing staff and was in her late 40s at the time of the events.
- Dewitt’s husband had prostate cancer and was covered as a dependent under Proctor’s self-insured health plan, under which Proctor bore substantial annual costs per covered person.
- Over several years, the husband’s cancer treatment generated very high medical expenses, making him one of the plan’s most costly beneficiaries.
- Dewitt’s supervisor expressed concern about the husband’s treatment costs, stated that the expenses were being reviewed, and suggested less expensive care alternatives.
- Proctor emphasized cost-cutting during the same period, including management discussion of financial difficulty and the need for cost reductions.
- Dewitt moved to part-time work during the summer of 2005, asserting she did so only on the understanding that family health coverage would continue.
- In August 2005, Proctor terminated Dewitt without a clear contemporaneous explanation.
- After termination, Dewitt elected COBRA continuation coverage; her husband later died while COBRA coverage was still in effect.
- Dewitt sued alleging ADA “association” discrimination based on her husband’s disability-related costs, plus age and sex discrimination; she later sought leave to amend to add an ERISA § 510 interference/retaliation claim.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Proctor on all pleaded claims and denied leave to amend as futile.

## Issues

1. Whether Dewitt presented sufficient evidence to defeat summary judgment on her ADA association-discrimination claim based on Proctor’s alleged desire to avoid the costs of her husband’s disability-related medical care.
2. Whether summary judgment was properly granted to Proctor on Dewitt’s age and sex discrimination claims.
3. Whether the district court properly denied leave to amend to add an ERISA § 510 interference/retaliation claim on futility grounds.

## Decision

- Summary judgment for Proctor on the ADA association-discrimination claim was reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
- Summary judgment for Proctor on the age discrimination and sex discrimination claims was affirmed.
- Denial of leave to amend to add an ERISA § 510 claim was reversed and remanded.

## Legal Principles

- ADA association discrimination (42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(4)) prohibits adverse action taken because of the known disability of an individual with whom the employee has a relationship, including when the asserted motive is avoidance of disability-related costs.
- Under the “direct method” of proof, a plaintiff may defeat summary judgment by presenting direct or circumstantial evidence that permits a reasonable jury to infer discriminatory motive; an admission is not required.
- On summary judgment, courts must view the record in the nonmovant’s favor and may not resolve evidentiary conflicts or weigh competing inferences.
- ADEA and Title VII claims require evidence linking the adverse action to age or sex; absence of comparator or other probative evidence of age/sex-based motive supports summary judgment.
- Leave to amend under Rule 15 should be denied as futile only when the proposed claim would clearly fail as a matter of law; plausible inferences from the same cost-focused facts may support an ERISA § 510 interference/retaliation theory.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit held that evidence showing employer awareness of, and concern about, a spouse’s high disability-related medical costs under a self-funded plan could permit a jury to infer unlawful ADA association discrimination, while Dewitt’s record did not support age or sex bias; it also allowed amendment to pursue an ERISA § 510 claim based on the same alleged benefit-cost motive.


Dewitt v. Proctor Hosp., 517 F.3d 944 (7th Cir. 2008)