Background
Chicago police officer Marco DiFranco had cystic fibrosis and cystic-fibrosis-related diabetes, conditions that placed him at high risk from COVID-19. On March 19, 2020, his medical provider asked the Chicago Police Department to permit him to work remotely or otherwise distance him from others. DiFranco later contracted COVID-19 and died on April 2, becoming the first Chicago police officer to die from the disease contracted in the line of duty.
His estate alleged that the City failed to act promptly on his accommodation request and kept him performing ordinary narcotics work until he became ill. The City presented testimony that, by March 23, DiFranco and other narcotics officers had been reassigned to monitor public locations alone from their police vehicles. Although the department did not contemporaneously document an individualized accommodation and an exposure report appeared to have been backdated, the district court found no evidence contradicting the City’s material account and granted it summary judgment.
The Court’s Holding
The Seventh Circuit affirmed. On the claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Illinois Human Rights Act, the court held that the undisputed evidence showed DiFranco received a reasonable accommodation within two business days of his request: an assignment monitoring public areas alone from his vehicle. Departures from the department’s ordinary procedures and the lack of contemporaneous paperwork did not establish a failure to accommodate because the relevant question was whether an effective accommodation was actually provided.
The court also upheld summary judgment on the Illinois wrongful-death claim because the estate lacked evidence of causation. The estate had conceded below that the exposure report’s narrative was accurate in stating that DiFranco was exposed to COVID-19 on or before March 19, before he requested an accommodation. It produced no evidence of a later workplace exposure caused by any delay or failure to reassign him.
The discrepancies in the City’s evidence—including substantial evidence that the exposure report was backdated—did not create a material factual dispute. Without contrary evidence, the estate could not avoid summary judgment merely by arguing that a jury might disbelieve the City’s witnesses.
Key Takeaways
- An employer may satisfy its reasonable-accommodation duty even without following its usual interactive process or formally documenting the accommodation, provided the employee actually receives an effective accommodation.
- Questions about witness credibility, standing alone, do not defeat summary judgment; the nonmoving party must identify evidence that disputes material facts.
- A wrongful-death plaintiff must present evidence connecting the defendant’s alleged breach to the death, and speculation about a later workplace exposure cannot establish causation.
Why It Matters
The decision emphasizes that disability-accommodation claims focus principally on the accommodation provided, rather than procedural irregularities in how an employer reached or recorded that result. Even significant recordkeeping problems will not necessarily require a trial unless they support a reasonable dispute over a material fact.
The ruling also illustrates the evidentiary consequences of concessions at summary judgment. By accepting that DiFranco was exposed before requesting reassignment and offering no proof of a later exposure, the estate could not show that the City’s response to his request caused his illness or death.