Accommodating a longtime employee's medical impairments does not establish that an employer regarded the employee as disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), according to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

In June 2003, Connie Cigan, a 30-year employee of the Chippewa Falls School District, retired from her position as physical education instructor. According to Cigan, the school district forced her to retire because of her medical impairments, which included arthritis, bursitis and degenerating spinal discs.

Before her retirement, the school permitted Cigan to take time off work and to ask other teachers to cover some of her duties or to adjust their own teaching periods to provide her with additional rest time.

In January 2003, the school superintendent informed Cigan that he would not recommend renewing her contract for the 2003-2004 school year. Cigan decided to retire at the end of the school year.

Cigan then filed a lawsuit, alleging violation of the ADA based upon her "forced" retirement, which she characterized as a constructive discharge. The lower court dismissed her claims, and the 7th Circuit agreed, holding that constructive discharge must include "unendurable working conditions." Cigan's argument that working conditions are irrelevant when the prospect of discharge lurks in the background was unfounded in law. The prospect of being fired at the conclusion of an extended process is not itself a constructive discharge, the court said.

The appeals court also held that Cigan was not "disabled" under the ADA because she did not show she was substantially limited in any major life activity. Instead, Cigan asserted that the school district had "regarded" her as disabled, based primarily on the district's efforts to accommodate her impairments.

The ADA requires employers to provide certain accommodations to qualified individuals with disabilities, and to engage in an interactive process to determine the applicability and reasonableness of the accommodations. For most purposes, a person "regarded as" disabled by an employer has the same rights as a person who actually is disabled. An individual is regarded as disabled when the employer believes that an impairment substantially limits one or more of the employee's major life activities.

The 7th Circuit, however, was unwilling to accept the premise that an employer offers accommodations only if it thinks an employee suffers from a substantial limitation in a major life activity. Instead, the court specifically found that "decent managers" try to help employees cope with declining health without knowing or caring whether an employee fits the description in the federal statute. Similarly, managers can respond to state and local laws, regulations, and collective bargaining agreements without implicitly concluding that an employee is disabled.