## Facts

- Richard A. Graham suffered a permanent cognitive impairment after a severe beating, which he alleged made it difficult to articulate thoughts, comprehend information, and challenge authority figures.
- In 2008, Graham began working part-time as a custodian for St. John’s United Methodist Church.
- After another part-time custodian left, Graham assumed the custodial duties and alleged he performed the work satisfactorily.
- Reverend Sheryl Palmer supervised Graham and allegedly expected him to work roughly 35–40 hours per week while allowing him to record only 25 hours on his time sheets, and also directed him to perform Palmer’s personal chores.
- Graham alleged Palmer and others called him disability-related names such as “stupid” and “retard,” and that Palmer sometimes yelled at him in front of others to embarrass him.
- In 2011, Graham became ill and was scheduled for surgery. Two church members supported him by helping him file a complaint with the Illinois Department of Labor regarding Palmer’s treatment and by informing Palmer and the church about Graham’s illness and planned surgery.
- Graham alleged Palmer set his return-to-work date shortly after surgery and then terminated him when he could not return by that date.
- Graham sued St. John’s, the Illinois Great Rivers Conference of the United Methodist Church, and Palmer (individually), asserting ADA claims including discrimination, failure to accommodate, hostile work environment, and retaliation.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment on the federal claims (and related theories), disputing that Graham met the ADAAA disability standard and disputing causation and other required elements.

## Issues

1. Whether the summary-judgment record could support a finding that Graham had an ADAAA “disability” (or was “regarded as” disabled) based on his cognitive impairment.
2. Whether a reasonable jury could find that St. John’s took adverse actions against Graham because of disability (including his termination).
3. Whether Graham produced evidence that he requested a reasonable accommodation and that defendants failed to provide it as required by the ADA.
4. Whether the alleged slurs and treatment were severe or pervasive enough, and disability-based enough, to constitute a hostile work environment under the ADA.
5. Whether Graham produced evidence of ADA retaliation: protected activity, a materially adverse action, and a causal connection.
6. Whether the Illinois Great Rivers Conference could be treated as Graham’s employer (or otherwise liable) and whether Palmer could be individually liable under the ADA.

## Decision

- The court granted summary judgment for all defendants on Graham’s ADA claims.
- The court concluded Graham’s evidence was insufficient to create a triable dispute that he was disabled within the meaning of the ADAAA for the relevant period, or that defendants regarded him as disabled in a legally actionable way.
- The court found the record did not support an inference that Graham’s termination (or other challenged treatment) was because of disability, rather than for non-discriminatory reasons asserted by the employer.
- The court rejected the failure-to-accommodate theory because Graham did not identify a supported, properly requested reasonable accommodation that the employer refused.
- The court held the alleged conduct did not meet the demanding “severe or pervasive” standard for an ADA hostile work environment on the evidence presented.
- The court found insufficient evidence of causation for ADA retaliation.
- The court ruled the Illinois Great Rivers Conference was not shown to be Graham’s employer for ADA purposes on this record, and that the ADA does not permit individual-capacity liability against a supervisor such as Palmer.

## Legal Principles

- At summary judgment, the nonmoving party must present evidence from which a reasonable jury could find for that party; allegations in the complaint are not enough.
- Under the ADAAA, “disability” is read broadly, and major life activities include thinking and concentrating, but a plaintiff must still produce evidence of a qualifying limitation (or evidence supporting “regarded as” status) tied to the relevant time.
- ADA disparate-treatment claims require evidence that disability was the reason for the adverse action; under burden-shifting methods, employers may prevail by offering legitimate reasons unrebutted by evidence of pretext.
- A failure-to-accommodate claim generally requires proof of a known disability, a request (or other clear notice of the need) for a specific reasonable accommodation, and a denial that results in an adverse consequence.
- ADA hostile-work-environment claims require proof of harassment that is both disability-based and sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment.
- ADA retaliation requires evidence of protected activity, a materially adverse action, and causation; timing alone may be insufficient without supporting proof of retaliatory motive.
- ADA liability generally runs to an “employer” as defined by the statute; separate entities require proof of sufficient control or other facts supporting employer status. Supervisors are not individually liable under the ADA in their personal capacity.

## Conclusion

The court entered judgment for St. John’s, the Illinois Great Rivers Conference, and Reverend Palmer because Graham did not present evidence sufficient for a jury to find ADAAA disability (or “regarded as” disability) status, disability-based causation for the adverse actions, a denied reasonable accommodation, actionable disability harassment, or retaliation, and because the Conference was not shown to be his employer and Palmer was not individually liable under the ADA.


Graham v. St. John's United Methodist Church, 913 F. Supp. 2d 650 (2012)