## Facts

- Stephen J. Hoffman worked as a service technician delivering and servicing home medical equipment, initially for Pharmacare and later for Carefirst of Fort Wayne, Inc. (doing business as Advanced Healthcare) after an acquisition.
- Hoffman’s work was generally an 8-hour day, Monday through Friday, and he operated from a home office in Angola, Indiana, to serve patients in that area.
- In 2007, Hoffman was diagnosed with Stage III renal cell carcinoma; after treatment and leave, he returned to work in January 2008 without formal work restrictions but reported pain and fatigue.
- In January 2009, Hoffman’s supervisor informed him that technicians would be required to work roughly 65–70 hours per week, including a weekly night shift in Fort Wayne and weekend on-call duties.
- Hoffman provided a doctor’s note limiting him to eight hours per day, five days per week; his supervisor responded that Hoffman must either resign or work the required overtime.
- The employer later offered Hoffman a 40-hour schedule only if he worked out of Fort Wayne rather than from Angola; Hoffman objected because the commute would add about two hours daily.
- Hoffman was terminated on January 30, 2009 and sued under the ADA, as amended by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA), alleging disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and that the employer regarded him as disabled.
- The employer moved for summary judgment and also moved to strike a coworker affidavit and an exhibit attached to Hoffman’s affidavit.

## Issues

1. Whether renal cell carcinoma in remission qualifies as a “disability” under the ADAAA because it would substantially limit a major life activity when active.
2. Whether there were triable issues that Hoffman was a qualified individual who could perform the job’s essential functions with a reasonable accommodation (including a 40-hour schedule based in Angola).
3. Whether triable issues existed on reasonable accommodation, the interactive process, and undue hardship, and on the “regarded as” theory.
4. Whether the challenged affidavit and exhibit should be stricken at the summary judgment stage.

## Decision

- The court denied the employer’s motion for summary judgment.
- The court held that Hoffman’s cancer in remission constituted a disability under the ADAAA because it would be substantially limiting when active, and he did not have to prove substantial limitation at the time of termination.
- The court found genuine disputes of material fact on whether the increased hours, Fort Wayne night shift, and additional commute were essential job functions and whether Hoffman could perform the job with a reasonable accommodation.
- The court found factual disputes on whether the employer offered a reasonable accommodation, engaged in good faith in the interactive process, and whether Hoffman’s proposed arrangement would impose an undue hardship.
- The court denied the motion to strike, concluding the challenged materials were not shown to be clearly inadmissible for summary judgment purposes.

## Legal Principles

- Under the ADAAA, an impairment that is episodic or in remission is a disability if it would substantially limit a major life activity when active.
- ADAAA coverage does not require a plaintiff with a qualifying episodic or remitted impairment to prove substantial limitation at the moment of the adverse employment action.
- Summary judgment is improper where record evidence permits reasonable disagreement over essential functions, reasonable accommodation, the interactive process, or undue hardship.
- At summary judgment, evidence need not be in trial-ready form if it could be presented in an admissible form at trial; materials are not stricken absent a clear showing of inadmissibility.

## Conclusion

The court applied the ADAAA’s broadened definition of disability to hold that Stage III renal cancer in remission qualified as a disability and concluded that disputed facts about essential job functions, reasonable accommodation, the interactive process, and undue hardship required denial of the employer’s summary judgment motion, while also rejecting an effort to strike the employee’s supporting submissions.


Hoffman v. Carefirst of Fort Wayne, Inc., 737 F. Supp. 2d 976 (N.D. Ind. 2010)