Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—7th Cir.: Chicago prevails in ADA, wrongful death suit tied to narcotics officer’s COVID-19 exposure, (Aug 10, 2026)

By Kathleen Kapusta, J.D.

“Exactly what [the officer] feared would happen, given his cystic fibrosis and cystic-fibrosis-related diabetes, did happen: he was exposed to Covid-19 at work, contracted the disease, and died.”

Despite key documents that appeared to have been prepared after the fact, including a report indicating when the first Chicago police officer to die from COVID contracted in the line of duty was actually exposed to the virus, the Seventh Circuit found no evidence calling into dispute the city’s assertion it accommodated the officer and his illness and death did not result from an exposure to COVID that occurred after he requested an accommodation. Affirming summary judgment against the ADA and state-law claims brought by his estate, the court observed that the estate admitted the officer was exposed to the virus before he asked for a reassignment and there was no evidence he was exposed in the course of his work at some later date (DiFranco v. City of Chicago, No. 24-3164 (7th Cir. Aug. 7, 2026)).

Accommodation request. The officer, a 22-year veteran with the Chicago Police Department, was a top officer with the narcotics division on March 19, 2020, when the department advised anyone who believed they were at higher risk of serious illness from COVID-19 to contact the medical section. That same day, the officer, who had cystic fibrosis and cystic-fibrosis-related diabetes, provided the medical section with a letter from his doctor requesting an arrangement that would distance him from others. Although the medical director forwarded the letter to the HR director indicating that the officer was at high risk from COVID, there was no evidence any formal follow-up steps were taken.

The officer worked as usual on the following day, a Friday, and was off duty over the weekend. While the estate argued that the officer reported for work on March 23 with no accommodation, the city claimed that because all narcotics officers were reassigned after March 21, and after the governor’s March 20 stay-at-home order, to monitor critical infrastructure from their individually assigned vehicles, there was no need to identify a individualized accommodation for the officer.

New assignment. On Monday, March 23, the officer met with the division commander to express concern about his need for an accommodation. According to the commander, he assured the officer they would find an accommodation for him. Later that day, the officer complained to a medical section captain that he had been sitting in an office with fellow officers on the prior two workdays. When the captain told him alternative work assignments were available, the officer purportedly responded that he was going to be driving in a car by himself keeping people off the beaches, he was content with that assignment, and he was just venting his frustrations with the department.

Death and exposure report. The officer worked March 24, 25, and 26, was out sick on the 27, and was hospitalized on the 28. He tested positive for COVID the following day and died on April 2. At some point, the head of the officer’s narcotics team completed a report dated March 19 that indicated the officer had been exposed to COVID at headquarters on or before the 19. The report indicated that the officer was “Unable to Sign” even though he was working that day and the following day. On April 2, the department’s awards committee determined that the officer’s death had occurred in the line of duty.

Lower court proceedings. The officer’s estate subsequently sued the city under the ADA, the Illinois Human Rights Act, and the Illinois Wrongful Death Act asserting claims for failure to accommodate and wrongful death and the district court granted summary judgment to the department on both claims.

Failure to accommodate. On appeal, the estate argued that in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, the department should have acted with some degree of alacrity but instead, between the date of his accommodation request on the 19th and his becoming ill one week later, it never accommodated the officer at all and he was still performing his usual duties during that time. For its part, the department claimed that within two business days after the officer submitted his request, he and other narcotics officers were reassigned to monitor public infrastructure and gathering places from their own vehicles, which was a sufficient means of isolating him from others and minimizing the risk of his exposure to COVID-19.

As to whether the officer was in fact accommodated, the court noted his division head’s testimony that as of March 23, he was assigned to monitor Chicago’s lakefront by himself using his usual department vehicle. The estate argued that a lack of proper documentation of this accommodation called its veracity into doubt and the court agreed that there was no contemporaneous documentation of the steps, if any, the department took to address his accommodation request. Indeed, it was not until after his death that the medical section captain, acting on instructions from the department’s general counsel, prepared a memo recounting his meeting with the officer, including the officer’s purported statement that his team head had given him an alternate assignment.

Moreover, the evidence showed the process by which the officer was accommodated, as described by the captain and division head, was inconsistent with the department’s reassignment process as neither of them were authorized to reassign an officer and beach patrol was not an alternate assignment the department was granting to those requesting COVID-related work assignments. The estate also pointed to the COVID-19 exposure report that appeared to have been backdated.

Departures from procedures. The court, however, found the department’s departures from its accommodation procedures and chain of command did not raise a question of fact as to whether the officer was reassigned from his regular narcotics duties to monitoring beach areas. Given the urgency posed by the pandemic, the governor’s stay-at-home order, and the need to protect all narcotics officers from exposure to the COVID-19 virus, these deviations were not surprising. Moreover, in view of the decision to deploy large numbers of narcotics officers to monitor public areas to ensure compliance with the stay-at-home order, there was no need to consider an individualized accommodation for the officer.

Exposure report. Regarding the exposure report, while the court found substantial evidence it was backdated, the estate conceded the truth of its narrative—the officer was exposed to the virus on or before March 19—and it failed to provide any evidence to support its conjecture that the officer was exposed to COVID-19 while at work on some date after he requested reassignment on March 19. “On these facts,” said the court, “the backdating of the exposure report does no more than add to the smoke created by the other anomalies in the record. It does not give rise to a dispute of fact that is material to the resolution of [the officer’s] ADA claim.” Thus, the court affirmed summary judgment against this claim.

Wrong death. Turning to the estate’s wrongful death claim, the court noted it was based on the theory that the department did not grant the officer an alternative assignment that would isolate him from other people in time to avoid his exposure to the virus, that he consequently contracted COVID while working, and that he died as a result. Again, the court pointed out, there was no evidence he was exposed to COVID-19 in the course of his work at some time after March 19 when he requested a new assignment.

Further, the court again observed, the estate did not dispute the narrative of the exposure report, which indicated that the officer was exposed to COVID-19 on or before March 19 and it produced no evidence that he was exposed to the virus for a second time while working at some point after he made his accommodation request on the afternoon of March 19. And even assuming the department did not accommodate him by March 26, there was no evidence this delay led to a subsequent exposure to the virus that caused the officer to contract COVID-19.

Rejecting finally the estate’s contention that because of the officer’s unavailability as a witness, the court should be hesitant to affirm summary judgment, the Seventh Circuit pointed out that any number of other witnesses employed in the narcotics division could have testified as to the veracity of the department’s assertion the officer and others were reassigned during the week of March 23 to monitor public infrastructure from their individual police vehicles. Accordingly, the court affirmed summary judgment on this claim as well.

The case is No. 24-3164.

Judge: Rovner, I.

Attorneys: Steven M. Laduzinsky (Laduzinsky & Schoop) for Maria DiFranco. Daniel Alperstein, City of Chicago Law Department, for City of Chicago.

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination Covid19 PublicEmployees StateLawClaims IllinoisNews IndianaNews WisconsinNews GCNNews