## Facts

- Anna Kinney was the director of imaging services at a hospital, supervising about 120 radiology employees and overseeing department operations and equipment.
- She had an anxiety diagnosis and previously received approval for intermittent medical leave.
- During the COVID-19 pandemic, the hospital temporarily required remote work, then ordered employees to return on-site and required face coverings in the hospital.
- Kinney continued working remotely without obtaining approval and delegated in-person tasks to subordinate employees, prompting complaints and performance concerns.
- Management directed Kinney to be physically present at least several days per week to perform her role.
- Kinney asserted that mask-wearing worsened her anxiety and sought an accommodation to work only from home to avoid masks; the hospital denied the request.
- Kinney proposed an alternative arrangement: limited in-person work (two days per week) and spending most time isolated in a closed office; the hospital denied that request as well.
- Kinney resigned and sued under the ADA and Title VII (among other statutes); the district court granted summary judgment for the hospital on all claims.
- On appeal, Kinney pursued ADA failure-to-accommodate, discrimination, and retaliation claims, and Title VII failure-to-promote and retaliation (constructive discharge) claims.

## Issues

1. Whether Kinney was a “qualified individual” under the ADA given the essential functions of her department-director role.
2. Whether Kinney’s requested accommodations (full-time remote work or limited on-site work with minimal masking exposure) were reasonable under the ADA.
3. Whether the denial of accommodations and the hospital’s return-to-work and masking requirements supported ADA discrimination or retaliation based on constructive discharge.
4. Whether Kinney produced sufficient evidence that sex discrimination caused the hospital’s failure to promote her under Title VII.
5. Whether Kinney established Title VII retaliation based on constructive discharge.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the hospital on all appealed claims.
- The court held Kinney was not a qualified individual under the ADA because she could not perform essential functions of her job without being physically present in the department.
- The court held her proposed accommodations were not reasonable because they would effectively eliminate essential in-person supervisory duties rather than enable their performance.
- The court rejected constructive discharge theories under both the ADA and Title VII because requiring compliance with neutral safety protocols and on-site attendance was not objectively intolerable.
- The court held Kinney failed to raise a triable issue on Title VII failure to promote because she did not show she was similarly or more qualified than the selected male candidate(s) or that the hospital’s explanations were pretextual.

## Legal Principles

- An ADA plaintiff must be a “qualified individual,” meaning able to perform the job’s essential functions with or without a reasonable accommodation.
- Regular on-site presence may be an essential function for supervisory leadership roles, particularly where oversight, coordination, and real-time problem-solving are central duties.
- An accommodation is not reasonable if it removes, reallocates, or substantially reduces essential job functions rather than assisting the employee in performing them.
- Constructive discharge requires working conditions so objectively intolerable that a reasonable person would feel compelled to resign; denial of a preferred accommodation and enforcement of neutral workplace policies generally do not meet that standard.
- A Title VII failure-to-promote claim requires evidence permitting an inference of discrimination, commonly through comparative qualifications and proof that the employer’s stated reasons are pretextual.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit concluded that the hospital imaging director position required substantial in-person supervision and coordination, making remote-work or near-remote arrangements unreasonable accommodations, and it found no evidence of constructive discharge or sex-based promotional discrimination; summary judgment for the hospital was affirmed.


Kinney v. St. Mary’s Health, Inc., 76 F.4th 635 (7th Cir. 2023)