Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Hoffman v. Carefirst of Fort Wayne

737 F. Supp. 2d 976 (2010)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 33,800+ case briefs...

Hoffman v. Carefirst of Fort Wayne

United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana

737 F. Supp. 2d 976 (2010)

Facts

In 2006, Stephen Hoffman (plaintiff) was hired as a service technician by Pharmacare. Hoffman worked from Pharmacare’s office in Angola, Indiana, traveling by van to supply patients with home medical devices. Hoffman worked eight hours per day, Monday through Friday. In 2007, Carefirst of Fort Wayne, Inc. d/b/a Advanced Healthcare (Advanced) (defendant) acquired Pharmacare and offered Hoffman a similar service-technician position. Hoffman signed a job description, acknowledging that the new role would require on-call availability after hours, but Hoffman’s job duties did not change significantly. Later that year, Hoffman was diagnosed with cancer. Following a medical leave, Hoffman returned to work in January 2008 with no specific restrictions on his work. Although he suffered some pain and fatigue, Hoffman continued to perform his normal job responsibilities. Hoffman also converted his garage in Angola to a home office and began to work from there. In January 2009, Hoffman’s supervisor, David Long, notified Hoffman that Hoffman and his fellow service technicians would have to begin working 65 to 70 hours per week. Hoffman would also have to work a weekly night shift in Fort Wayne, an hour away from Hoffman’s home, and be on call on weekends. The next day, Hoffman provided Long with a note from his doctor stating that Hoffman could not work more than eight hours per day, five days per week. Long told Hoffman that he could either resign or work the overtime like the other service technicians. Hoffman declined, and Long told Hoffman that he would be discharged. Later that day, however, Long told Hoffman that he would be allowed to work 40 hours per week but would have to work from Fort Wayne instead of his home office. Hoffman told Long that he could not add two hours of commute time to his day. At the time, Hoffman’s cancer was in remission, and Hoffman did not ask his doctors whether it would be advisable for him to commute to Fort Wayne. Hoffman filed suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and Advanced moved for summary judgment. Hoffman presented evidence that his discharge resulted in Advanced having to pay additional overtime to its service technicians and additional transportation expenses.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Lozano, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 605,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 605,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,800 briefs, keyed to 984 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 605,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 33,800 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership