Ostrowski v. Lake County

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
Americans with Disabilities Act
Citation
Case Number: 
Nos. 21-1674 and 21-2580 Cons.
Decision Date: 
May 11, 2022
Federal District: 
N.D. Ind., Hammond Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed and reversed in part

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-County’s motion for summary judgment in plaintiff-disabled former employee’s action, alleging that fact that County‘s disability pension plan did not provide yearly cost-of-living increases while County’s pension plan for non-disabled pensioners did provide for such increases violated notions of equal protection, Title I of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and Rehabilitation Act. Under Morgan, 268 F.3d 456, retired and other former workers like plaintiff are not protected by Title I of ADA. Moreover, plaintiff forfeited his Rehabilitation Act claim by failing to adequately develop his arguments on appeal. Also, plaintiff loses on his equal protection claim under rational basis review, where: (1) County has legitimate interest in providing pension plans that meet differing needs of distinct groups; and (2) County could rationally believe that other benefits given to disabled pensioners that are not available for non-disabled pensioners, such as lump-sum payments to disabled pensioners, would benefit disabled pensioners more than yearly cost-of-living adjustments provided years in future. Moreover, there was nothing irrational about providing more generous benefits for non-disabled pensioners who worked longer for Sheriff’s Dept. or who made more retirement contributions. Dist. Ct. erred, though, in awarding defendant costs and attorney fees based on language in prior settlement agreement between parties on different dispute that did not apply to instant action.