Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—7th Cir.: City not required to grant in-place promotion to firefighter who had suffered a stoke, (Jun 25, 2026)

By Kathleen Kapusta, J.D.

The employee “effectively requests a rule that an employee is entitled to an accommodation of his choice or, alternatively, a promotion in place.”

Affirming summary judgment against the ADA failure-to-accommodate claim of a Chicago Fire Department employee who had been placed in a non-firefighting position after suffering a stroke, and who alleged the city discriminated against him by denying him an in-place promotion, the Seventh Circuit found he was not qualified for the position, which included firefighting duties, and even if he were qualified, his requested accommodation was not reasonable. The court likewise affirmed summary judgment against his disability discrimination claim (Jezior v. City of Chicago, No. 25-1546 (7th Cir. June 24, 2026)).

Stroke. The employee began working for CFD in 1997 as a paramedic and later served as an engineer-paramedic. In 2009, he applied to become a lieutenant and was placed on the eligibility list. Four years later, he suffered a stroke that caused him to lose mobility on the left side of his body. Although his condition improved with physical therapy, he needs a leg brace to walk and has difficulty standing for more than 10 minutes.

Procurement position. Because he could no longer perform the essential duties of an engineer-paramedic, he submitted an accommodation request and was given a non-firefighting position at the airport performing procurement tasks. In order to reduce costs, however, the city began “civilianizing” certain position in its workforce that did not require firefighting. As part of this process, it targeted the lieutenant-rank procurement role at the airport. When the individual who held the position left, the employee took over some of her responsibilities.

Eligible. When, by March 2021, the employee became eligible for a promotion to lieutenant, he expected to receive an in-place promotion. But because all lieutenant positions at the airport required firefighting, the deputy fire commissioner told him he could accept the promotion and go through the department’s accommodation process to find a suitable position or waive it and remain in his current position. The commissioner later formally denied his requested in-place promotion through a title change form.

When an open lieutenant position became available in the Fire Prevention Bureau, the employee was informed that he could accept it subject to medical clearance or waive the promotion. The employee ultimately declined to file accommodation paperwork with an accompanying medical questionnaire because he did not want to risk failing the medical clearance for a new position and be forced into early retirement. As a result, he decided to stay in his airport procurement position.

Lower court proceedings. He subsequently sued under the ADA, asserting failure-to-accommodate and disability discrimination claims, and the district court entered summary judgment for the city.

Failure to accommodate. On appeal, the employee first argued that he was qualified for an in-place promotion because he had performed the role for many years without issue. But this, said the court, “presupposes that a lieutenant position involving no changes to his duties in fact existed—it did not.” The essential duties of airport lieutenant positions, the court explained, included firefighting, which the employee admittedly could not perform, and thus he was not qualified for the position.

Nor was his requested accommodation reasonable. While he argued that an in-place promotion was a reasonable request because it would not have caused the department undue hardship to keep him in the same position with a higher rank, the court found he was effectively requesting a rule that an employee is entitled to the accommodation of his choice or, alternatively, a promotion in place and the ADA requires neither. The CFD did not have to recreate the position, contrary to its cost-cutting efforts, to reasonably accommodate him.

Interactive process. Further, said the court, the employee cut off the interactive process when he refused to explore alternatives. He argued that the department offered him a “Hobson’s choice” to either waive the promotion or risk early retirement for failing to medically clear a new position and that the deputy commissioner did not know the requirements for an available role, the extent of his physical abilities, or whether any specific position would open.

The court, however, refused to fault the department for not knowing what specific positions could accommodate the employee because those facts would have been developed through the accommodation process, including the medical questionnaire he refused to submit. Accordingly, the court affirmed summary judgment against this claim.

Disability discrimination. Regarding the employee’s claim the department discriminated against him by denying him a lieutenant position at the airport, the court found that in addition to his inability to show he was qualified for the position, the claim also failed on causation grounds. He argued that the commissioner’s refusal to promote him despite knowing a lieutenant position in procurement would not require any more physical ability than the role he was already performing was direct evidence of discrimination.

But this, said the court, relied on the false presumption that such a position existed and as to the lieutenant-rank positions that did exist, he was told he could transfer to the Fire Prevention Bureau or seek an accommodation with the disability office to remain in the same bureau he was in and he did neither.

Alleged comparators. Nor was he able to show that any similarly situated comparators without disabilities were treated more favorably. Though he pointed to a lieutenant from the same lieutenant class as him who was promoted in place, he was in an exempt-rank position and thus was appointed by the fire commissioner outside the typical promotion process. In addition, he received the title of lieutenant while serving in that role but received no increase in his salary with that promotion. Thus, the court explained, he did not receive a promotion like the one the employee sought, which would involve the same job responsibilities as a lower-rank position but with higher pay.

The employee next pointed to the deputy commissioner who received a promotion when a budget line had been unavailable for his new position. This promotion, however, moved him from one exempt-rank position to an entirely different exempt-rank position while the employee sought to remain in the same role with a new rank.

And while he also pointed to a lieutenant who received a promotion in place through manipulation of budget lines, the employee failed to present any evidence of his promotion history in the court below or develop the comparison on appeal and thus he waived this argument. Accordingly, the court affirmed summary judgment against this claim as well.

The case is No 25-1546.

Judge: Kolar, J.

Attorneys: Edward M. Fox (Ed Fox & Associates) for Michael Jezior. Suzanne M. Loose, City of Chicago Law Department, for City of Chicago.

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination IllinoisNews IndianaNews WisconsinNews