Burnett was a janitor for Habitat, a property management business. His job required him to lift heavy objects. In October 2003, Burnett told Polo, his supervisor, that he had a medical problem. Polo offered to transfer Burnett to a different location, but Burnett declined because of his “weak bladder” and the reduced access to a restroom at the other location. After he missed work for a week in December, Burnett presented Polo with a copy of a doctor’s examination that showed he had a serious prostate problem. When he met with Polo to discuss his absence, Burnett said he was feeling sick and compared his symptoms to his brother-in-law’s symptoms before he was diagnosed with prostate cancer. In January 2004, Burnett told another supervisor that he was going to have a prostate biopsy at the end of the month. A short time later Polo reprimanded Burnett for wasting time, and Burnett filed a union grievance.
After the biopsy, Burnett returned to work with a doctor’s treatment plan that limited him from heavy lifting or strenuous activity. Burnett claimed that his supervisors ignored these restrictions, and he submitted two vacation requests. Polo denied the second request and told Burnett that the treatment plan was not important. Burnett said he was going home because he felt sick, and Polo terminated him the next day for insubordination. A week after he was terminated, Burnett was diagnosed with prostate cancer. Burnett claimed Habitat violated the FMLA by denying him leave and violated the ADA. Did Habitat violate the FMLA? The ADA? What defense will Habitat assert? Did Burnett’s supervisors exercise good business judgment? Act ethically? [Burnett v. LFW, Inc., 472 F.3d 471 (7th Cir. 2006).]