Bekker v. Humana Health Plan, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
229 F.3d 662 (2000)
- Written by Elliot Stern, JD
Facts
Dr. Stephanie Bekker (plaintiff) worked as a physician for Humana Health Plan, Inc. (Humana) (defendant). Over the course of Bekker’s employment, a number of patients and Humana employees reported smelling alcohol on Bekker’s breath while she was treating patients. In 1995, Bekker underwent an evaluation and treatment by a substance-abuse specialist, who did not diagnose Bekker with alcohol abuse. In 1996, after another patient complaint, Bekker was suspended, and Humana conducted an investigation during which numerous patients and Humana employees told investigators that they had often smelled alcohol on Bekker’s breath and noticed that she had glassy eyes and that her face was flushed when the odor was present. Bekker denied drinking at work or before work, and the investigation found no evidence that Bekker drank at work. The abuse specialist told the investigator that Bekker met the criteria for alcohol abuse and that Bekker drank heavily the night before work, with the effects persisting into the next day. The specialist recommended that Bekker refrain from practicing medicine and enter into rehab. Humana fired Bekker. According to Humana, Bekker was fired because Humana believed that she was an alcoholic and presented risks to her patients. Bekker sued Humana for discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), arguing that she had been terminated on the basis of the perceived disability of alcoholism. The district court granted summary judgment to Humana. Bekker appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Ripple, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.