Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—N.D. Ill.: CTA bus driver, injured in paintball shooting, gets trial on ADA claims, (Jan 9, 2026)

By Jason Albright, J.D.

She was standing outside a bus shelter on 79th Street when a person leaned out of a passing car and shot her in the thigh and stomach.

A bus driver for the Chicago Transit Authority, fired after she was injured in a paintball gun shooting and sustained a lasting shoulder injury that led to an extended absence from work, may proceed to trial with her ADA discrimination and failure to accommodate claims, a federal district court found. When she received an ultimatum letter and reported to her worksite on April 11, 2022, her supervisor told her, “[u]nless you come back full-time driving a bus, we're not going to let you back in,” and a reasonable jury could find that she identified vacant temporary positions for which she was eligible as part a CTA program that provides temporary reassignments to certain injured employees (Scruggs v. Chicago Transit Authority, No. 24 C 2712 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 8, 2026)).

CTA bus operator. The plaintiff, according to the court, was hired by the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) as a part-time bus operator in October 2017. She later held the same position on a full-time basis, and she worked out of the 77th Street Garage in Chicago.

AWOL policy. The bus operator was a unionized employee subject to the CTA’s Corrective Action Guidelines, which provide that an employee is absent without leave (AWOL) if she is scheduled to work but fails to contact her immediate supervisor by the end of the workday. A first offense under the AWOL policy may result in a final written warning, and a second offense is punishable by a referral to the general manager with a recommendation for discharge.

Paintball gun shooting. She was injured on September 27, 2020, a day she was scheduled to work two shifts. After working the first shift, she napped in her car and woke up. She was standing outside a bus shelter on 79th Street when a person leaned out of a passing car and shot her in the thigh and stomach. She fell to the ground and lost consciousness. Though she believed she had been shot with a bullet, she had actually been shot by a paintball gun.

Injuries, surgeries, and PTSD. As a result of her fall, she injured both shoulders, hips, and knees. And she suffered a lasting injury to her left shoulder that required two surgeries.

The incident also triggered her preexisting post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). She was absent from work from the date of her injury until her termination in May 2022. On the day of her injury, she submitted an injury-on-duty claim to the CTA's third-party administrator, but the claim was denied without explanation.

“[F]ive-day letter.” In March 2021, after she had been absent for several months, her supervisor sent her a “five-day letter,” a certified letter “sent to [bus] operators who are off work without an approved leave” to inquire “why they would continue to be off work without leave and whether or not they plan to return to work at any time.” The letter directed her to report to her work location to explain her absence or document why she could not report to her work location. She reported to the 77th Street Garage and stated that she intended to request an accommodation.

Accommodation request. In April 2021, the employee submitted an accommodation request to the CTA’s Accommodation Review Committee, which considers accommodations within the employee’s existing position or in alternative positions. The request included documentation from a physician stating that she required surgery for her left shoulder, could not drive, and would be limited in her ability to drive for eight to 12 months after her surgery. The date of the surgery was not specified. The CTA denied the request.

Denial letter. The denial letter stated: “[T]he Committee has determined that you cannot perform the essential functions of your position, Bus Operator. The Committee, however, is neither aware of a reasonable accommodation that would allow you to perform your position's duties due to your current medical restrictions, nor of an open position at CTA for which you are qualified and eligible to fill.”

TRTW program. The CTA, however, administers a program entitled Transitional Return to Work (TRTW), which provides temporary reassignments to certain injured employees. Employees are eligible for TRTW after the CTA’s third-party administrator certifies that the employee suffered an injury on duty, “an injury... sustained by an employee that arises out of and in the course of CTA employment.” The employee must have “temporary physical or mental limitations [that] prevent them from performing their regular duties[.]” A physician must evaluate the employee and a “written prognosis must provide for a full recovery within six months.”

According to the plaintiff, some injured bus operators held TRTW positions at the 77th Street Garage. The CTA maintained that she could not receive a TRTW placement because the CTA’s third-party administrator had denied her injury-on-duty claim.

Physician’s determinations. In March 2022, a physician stated that the bus operator had been medically unable to work since the date of her injury because she could not drive long distances or for over 30 minutes. The physician estimated that she would be able to return to work on December 30, 2022. In April 2022, the physician cleared her to work but prohibited her from driving a commercial vehicle, using her arm above the shoulder, repetitive pulling or pushing, and lifting over five pounds.

Supervisor’s alleged statement. Then, at an April 11, 2022, meeting, she alleged, her supervisor told her, “[u]nless you come back full-time driving a bus, we're not going to let you back in.” On April 20, 2022, he sent her a second five-day letter requiring her to report to work. He then sent a recommendation to another manager to discharge the driver for failing to comply with the CTA's AWOL policy.

Fired. In May 2022, she was fired for violating the AWOL policy by being absent from work since September 2020 without an approved leave.

Intervening injury and surgeries. On April 22, 2022, before she was discharged, she injured both shoulders through a fall unrelated to her work at the CTA. She had a left shoulder replacement as well as surgery on her right shoulder. She reported the injury to the CTA’s third-party leave administrator but not to her supervisor.

Lawsuit. In October 2022, she filed a disability discrimination complaint with the EEOC, and in August 2023, the EEOC issued a notice of right to sue. In November 2023, she filed a civil suit in state court against an employee of the CTA. She later named the CTA as the sole defendant, and the CTA removed the case to federal district court. Before the court was the CTA’s motion for summary judgment.

ADA discrimination. The court first observed that the CTA did not dispute that the driver had a disability resulting from her injuries. At issue was whether she was a qualified individual under the ADA and whether disability was the but-for cause of the adverse employment action. As to the first question, the CTA argued that she was not a qualified individual because she did not report to work “for over 600 days (from September 27, 2020, until her discharge date, May 23, 2022), because of her injury.” Still, the court observed, a plaintiff may “show that she was qualified to perform the essential functions of another vacant position[,]” and it is “her burden to prove that there was a vacant position for which she was qualified.”

Here, the court observed, the driver testified that she observed other injured bus operators performing clerical and janitorial tasks as they recovered from physical and mental injuries. She desired a similar temporary, light duty position under the CTA's TRTW program, and a reasonable jury could find that she could perform the essential functions of such a position, concluded the court.

The CTA further maintained that she was ineligible because its third-party administrator did not certify that she suffered an injury on duty. The CTA itself, however, defines an injury on duty as an injury “sustained by an employee that arises out of and in the course of CTA employment,” observed the court, the driver was injured after she had worked one of her two shifts on September 27, 2020, while standing outside a bus shelter and waiting to relieve another bus driver and begin her second shift, and a reasonable jury could find that she was on duty at that moment.

Causation. Finally, a reasonable jury could find that her disability was a reason for her discharge, concluded the court. When she received a five-day letter and reported to her worksite on April 11, 2022, her supervisor told her, “[u]nless you come back full-time driving a bus, we're not going to let you back in.” That statement, together with the other evidence, the court concluded, would permit a reasonable jury to find that the driver was fired because of her disability: her disability temporarily prevented her from operating a commercial vehicle, and her supervisor threatened to fire her for that very reason.

She was thus entitled to a trial on her ADA disparate treatment claim.

Failure to accommodate. The driver’s ADA failure to accommodate claim fared similarly. As explained in the court's analysis of the disparate treatment claim, a reasonable jury could find that she was a qualified individual with a disability. The evidence also supported a finding that the CTA was aware of this disability through her repeated requests for accommodation and leave, which began with an injured-on-duty claim filed on the date of her initial injury. And there was a genuine factual dispute regarding whether the CTA failed to reasonably accommodate her disability. She “requested a textbook reasonable accommodation: reassignment to a vacant position,” and “[g]iven that the CTA has thousands of employees, a reasonable jury could find that [her] request for a temporary position in which she could perform light duty work was reasonable,” concluded the court.

The case is No. 24 C 2712.

Judge: Kennelly, M.

Attorneys: William Carl Loeffel (Law Offices of William C. Loeffel) for Stephanie B. Scruggs. Christine Marie Dadourian, Chicago Transit Authority, for Chicago Transit Authority.

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge PublicEmployees IllinoisNews GCNNews