CourtCases2010

Although the rebuttal notes that zihala was suffering

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: owledge of that disability before 189 Dr. Pirl's decision to discharge her became final. This is an unreasonable inference in light of the uncontroverted evidence produced [*19] by the Department. Nonetheless, Zihala contends that Dr. Pirl's decision to discharge her was based on manifestations of her mental illness. (Mem. Opp. at 7). Zihala has not cited, nor have we discovered, any factual support for this contention. The record is bare of any evidence that the problems Zihala was experiencing at work, as reflected in her discharge evaluation and Dr. Pirl's testimony, were rooted in her "Pschoeffective disorder." And even if Zihala produced such evidence, the Department would not be liable unless it had reason to know that her work performance was connected to her disability. See Hedberg v. Indiana Bell Tel. Co., 47 F.3d 928, 934 (7th Cir. 1995) (holding that an employer is not "bound to retain all apparently tardy and lazy employees on the chance that they may have a disability that causes their behavior."). Because Zihala has failed to produce any such evidence, a jury would be left to speculate that her behavior on the job was somehow connected to her mental illness. Unfortunately for Zihala, "speculation does not create a genuine issue of fact." Hedberg, 47 F.3d at 932. In summary, we find that the undisputed evidence establishes that the Department [*20] discharged Zihala because of her poor work performance and disruptive behavior. The discharge evaluation and Dr. Pirl's testimony establish that the Department believed that Zihala was not meeting its legitimate expectations. Zihala has offered no evidence to rebut this evidence. The undisputed evidence also establishes that the Department discharged Zihala based on Dr. Pirl's recommendation. At the time he decided to recommend that the Department discharge Zihala, Dr. Pirl neither had knowledge of Zihala's alleged disability nor did he have reason to believe that Zihala's poor work performance and disruptive behavior were the result of a disability. Based on these undisputed facts, there is no evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the Department discharged Zihala because of...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 09/30/2012 for the course ENC 102 taught by Professor Deria during the Spring '08 term at FIU.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online