Introduction
Alexia Knox, a former senior communications specialist for the Wisconsin Department of Transportation
(“WDOT”), brought claims under the Rehabilitation Act after WDOT terminated her employment. Because of
a mental-health impairment, Knox could not work on call outside ordinary business hours or serve on a
24/7 schedule during major traffic incidents and severe weather events. She also requested a flexible
schedule, discretionary breaks, and an office away from her supervisor.
The central question was whether Knox remained a “qualified individual” when she could not perform the
position’s on-call duties. The appeal also addressed whether the district court improperly denied her
request to supplement the record and whether her supervisor’s conduct created a disability-based hostile
work environment.
Although the decision does not establish binding circuit precedent, it provides a clear application of
existing Rehabilitation Act and Americans with Disabilities Act principles: a duty may be essential even
if performed only occasionally, and an employer generally need not remove that duty and transfer it to
other employees as an accommodation.
Factual and Procedural Background
When Knox was hired in November 2021, she signed a position summary stating that communications
specialists could be required to work outside normal hours during major incidents and severe weather.
The summary also warned that employees could be placed on call with little or no notice and might work a
24/7 schedule during such events.
Knox later reported that her supervisor, Anne Reshadi-Nezhad, yelled at her during a December 2 meeting,
called her frustrated and insubordinate, and accused her of having an attitude. During that meeting Knox
disclosed her anxiety disorder. Afterward, Knox missed work and eventually was placed on unpaid leave.
Medical documentation submitted in January 2022 stated that Knox could not work on call or on a 24/7
schedule. WDOT concluded that these restrictions were incompatible with the essential requirements of the
communications position. After the parties could not identify a suitable alternative position, WDOT
terminated Knox in May 2022.
The district court granted summary judgment to WDOT. It found that on-call availability was an essential
job function, that Knox could not perform it with a reasonable accommodation, and that the alleged
workplace hostility was not shown to be based on her disability. The court also denied Knox’s motion to
add emails to the record because she did not explain their relevance.
Analysis
Precedents Cited
Vance v. Ball State Univ.
The court cited Vance v. Ball State Univ. for the abuse-of-discretion standard governing the
denial of Knox’s motion to supplement the record. Because Knox did not connect the emails to a material
issue, the district court acted within its discretion in refusing to add them.
McHale v. McDonough
McHale v. McDonough supplied the de novo standard for reviewing summary judgment. The appellate
court therefore independently assessed whether the undisputed facts entitled WDOT to judgment as a matter
of law.
Smithson v. Austin
Under Smithson v. Austin, the substantive standards governing Rehabilitation Act claims are the
same as those applied under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The court accordingly relied on cases
interpreting both statutes.
Vargas v. DeJoy
Vargas v. DeJoy was the principal authority. It establishes that a plaintiff must be a
“qualified individual” capable of performing the position’s essential functions with or without a
reasonable accommodation. It also defines essential functions as the position’s fundamental duties and
recognizes the relevance of employer judgment and written job descriptions.
The court additionally relied on Vargas v. DeJoy for two propositions decisive here: an
infrequently performed duty may still be essential, and an employer generally need not reassign an
employee’s essential duties by reshuffling staff and resources.
Tonyan v. Dunham's Athleisure Corp.
Tonyan v. Dunham's Athleisure Corp. directs courts to give weight to the employer’s judgment
concerning essential functions and to consider the operational consequences of excusing an employee from
a duty. Excusing Knox from on-call work would have required other employees to provide all emergency
coverage, supporting WDOT’s position that the duty could not simply be removed.
Tate v. Dart
The court used Tate v. Dart to support its conclusion that availability outside ordinary working
hours can constitute an essential job function. The unpredictable timing of severe weather and major
traffic incidents reinforced that conclusion.
Shiba v. Mullin
Citing Shiba v. Mullin, the court assumed without deciding that a hostile-work-environment claim
is cognizable under the Rehabilitation Act. It also applied the requirement that the environment be both
objectively and subjectively offensive and marked by severe or pervasive harassment. Because the court
only assumed cognizability, it did not definitively resolve that legal question.
Ford v. Marion Cnty. Sheriff's Off.
Ford v. Marion Cnty. Sheriff's Off. supplied the disability-nexus requirement: workplace
mistreatment must be based on the employee’s disability. Knox conceded that her supervisor’s initial
conduct was not tied to her disability, undermining this essential element.
Yochim v. Carson
Yochim v. Carson reinforced the severe-or-pervasive standard. Assigning work after the meeting
and contacting Knox to determine why she was absent did not objectively or subjectively amount to severe
or pervasive disability-based harassment.
Legal Reasoning
The court’s reasoning began with the “qualified individual” requirement. Disability alone does not
entitle an employee to relief; the employee must also be able to perform the job’s essential functions,
either without assistance or through a reasonable accommodation.
Several forms of evidence established that on-call availability was essential:
- WDOT’s managerial judgment identified emergency availability as fundamental.
- The written position summary mentioned on-call and after-hours duties more than once.
- Knox accepted the position after signing that summary.
- Traffic emergencies and severe weather are unpredictable and may occur at any hour.
- Excusing Knox would require coworkers to assume her portion of the emergency coverage.
Knox emphasized that after-hours service was required only occasionally. The court rejected the premise
that frequency controls essentiality. A duty may be rare yet indispensable when the circumstances
requiring it arise.
The proposed accommodation also failed because it would not enable Knox to perform the on-call duty; it
would eliminate that duty from her position. Accommodation law may require changes in how a function is
performed, but it ordinarily does not require an employer to remove a fundamental duty or permanently
transfer it to coworkers.
The hostile-environment claim failed independently. The evidence did not establish both the necessary
severity and a connection to disability. Repeated efforts to locate an unexpectedly absent employee were
consistent with ordinary supervision rather than discriminatory harassment.
Potential Impact
Because the order is designated nonprecedential, it does not create a binding rule for later Seventh
Circuit panels. It may nevertheless be cited under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and may have
persuasive value.
The decision is particularly relevant to jobs involving emergency response, public communications,
healthcare, public safety, information technology, or other unpredictable events. It demonstrates that:
- Occasional duties may still be essential.
- Contemporaneous written job descriptions are significant evidence.
- Operational consequences matter when evaluating an accommodation.
- An accommodation that removes a fundamental duty is generally not reasonable.
- Hostile-environment claims require evidence connecting the alleged hostility to disability.
The ruling should not be read as holding that every on-call requirement is essential. The inquiry remains
fact-specific and depends on the actual duties, the employer’s documented judgment, how the position
operates, and the consequences of eliminating the requirement.