United States: Seventh Circuit: Mixed-Motive Claims Not Viable Under ADA

In Serwatka v. Rockwell Automation, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit extended the impact of United States Supreme Court's decision in Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., finding that mixed-motive claims are not viable under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Mixed-Motive Claims

In a mixed-motive discrimination case, an employee alleges that an employer took an adverse employment action because of a protected characteristic, but the employer contends it would have made the same decision even if the unlawful factor was not considered.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits the consideration of an unlawful factor, such as sex, even if the same decision would have been made if that factor was not considered. In such cases, the types of damages that can be recovered under Title VII are limited, and do not include back pay or reinstatement.

In Gross, the Supreme Court rejected the viability of mixed-motive claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) because the ADEA did not have express language recognizing mixed-motive claims that is found in Title VII.

The Serwatka Holding

Kathleen Serwatka filed a lawsuit under the ADA against her former employer, Rockwell Automation, alleging that it had discharged her because it regarded her as being disabled. A jury found that Rockwell discharged Serwatka due to its perception that she was substantially limited in her ability to walk or stand. However, the jury also found that Rockwell would have discharged Serwatka even if it did not believe she was substantially limited.

As a result of the jury's mixed-motive finding, the trial court in Serwatka did not award damages. The trial court did grant declaratory and injunctive relief, relying on a provision of the ADA that cross-references remedies provided for mixed-motive claims brought under Title VII. The trial court also awarded Serwatka a portion of her attorney's fees and costs.

The Seventh Circuit reversed the trial court. Although the Seventh Circuit noted that its past decisions had held that mixed-motive claims were viable under the ADA, it found that the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Gross now required a different course.

Both the ADEA and the ADA prohibit an employer from taking an adverse employment action "because of" some illegitimate factor. Gross interpreted "because of" to mean that consideration of the illegitimate factor must be the cause of the adverse employment action. In Serwatka, the Seventh Circuit applied the reasoning of Gross, holding that because the ADA uses the same "because of" language and lacks express language recognizing mixed-motive claims, Serwatka could only recover under the ADA if she showed that her perceived disability was the reasonfor her discharge.

In contrast, a claimant may bring a mixed-motive claim under Title VII because the statute expressly provides that "an unlawful employment practice is established when the complaining party demonstrates that race, color, religion, sex, or national origin was a motivating factor for any employment practice, even though other factors also motivated the practice." Because the ADA lacks a similar provision, the Seventh Circuit held that mixed-motive claims are not viable under the ADA.

Implications Of Serwatka For Employers

Although this decision only binds those courts within the Seventh Circuit (Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin), it may lead other courts to reject mixed-motive claims under the ADA. In jurisdictions following Serwatka, an employee will be required to establish at trial that his disability was the reason why he was terminated.

However, the reach of the decision in Serwatka is uncertain because of the recent amendments to the ADA. The ADA now prohibits discrimination "on the basis of disability" rather than "because of the disability." In a footnote, the court declined to address the issue of whether "on the basis of" means something different than "because of" and whether it means mixed-motive claims are viable under the amended ADA. As a result, it is unclear whether the court's holding will apply to actions brought under the current version of the ADA.

Regardless of whether the decision in Serwatka remains good law or is extended, employers should have a policy prohibiting consideration of characteristics protected under federal law, state or local law and should train its managers and supervisors to follow that policy.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.