The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has affirmed Indiana University's decision to terminate Jennifer Shirk, a former employee who claimed she was fired in retaliation for taking medical leave and requesting workplace accommodations for her mental health conditions.
Shirk worked for Indiana University in its eLearning Design and Services Group, a unit that assists the university's educational departments and program offices with online instructional resources. She began as an intern and advanced through the ranks to become an online instructional designer over two and a half years of service.
The termination stemmed from what the university characterized as unprofessional conduct involving a series of emails Shirk sent to high-level university officials. According to the court opinion, Shirk unnecessarily alerted senior administrators to a temporary problem in her unit that had already been resolved by her supervisor. In these communications, she also accused her supervisors of mismanagement.
The university viewed Shirk's decision to escalate an internal matter directly to upper-level leadership as insubordinate behavior and a breach of professional protocol. University officials determined this conduct warranted termination.
Shirk challenged her firing, arguing that the real reason for her termination was retaliation for taking medical leave and requesting accommodations for her mental health conditions, including obsessive-compulsive disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder. She filed suit against university officials in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, raising discrimination and retaliation claims under both the Rehabilitation Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act.
Chief Judge James R. Sweeney II of the Southern District of Indiana entered summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all claims, finding insufficient evidence to support Shirk's allegations of discriminatory or retaliatory conduct.
On appeal to the Seventh Circuit, Shirk narrowed her arguments to focus solely on her retaliation claims. She contended that the district judge applied the wrong legal standard for establishing causation between her protected activities and her termination. Shirk also argued that her evidence was sufficient to create genuine disputes of material fact that should have precluded summary judgment.
The three-judge panel consisting of Circuit Judges Diane Sykes, who authored the opinion, and Duane Lee heard oral arguments in the case on Sept. 27, 2023. Circuit Judge Joel Flaum was originally assigned to the panel but died while the case was pending. Under federal law, the appeal was resolved by the remaining two judges as a quorum of the panel.
In the Feb. 12, 2026 decision, Circuit Judge Sykes wrote the opinion affirming the district court's grant of summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit found that Shirk's evidence was insufficient to establish that her protected activities under the Rehabilitation Act and FMLA were the motivating factors behind her termination.
The court's analysis focused on the timing and circumstances surrounding Shirk's firing. While Shirk had engaged in protected activities by taking medical leave and requesting accommodations, the university presented legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the termination based on her email conduct toward senior officials.
The decision reinforces the principle that employees cannot shield inappropriate workplace behavior from disciplinary consequences simply by engaging in protected activities under federal employment laws. Universities and other employers retain the authority to terminate employees for legitimate performance or conduct issues, even when those employees have disabilities or have taken protected leave.
For educational institutions, the ruling provides guidance on documenting workplace conduct issues and maintaining consistent disciplinary policies. The case demonstrates the importance of having clear protocols for internal communications and escalation procedures.
The Seventh Circuit's affirmance also highlights the challenging burden plaintiffs face in establishing retaliation claims under federal employment laws. Courts require evidence showing that protected activities were a motivating factor in adverse employment decisions, not merely that the timing of events creates suspicion.
Shirk's case illustrates common workplace dynamics where employees may believe their terminations are pretextual while employers maintain they acted for legitimate business reasons. The federal court system's summary judgment process allows judges to resolve such disputes without trial when the evidence clearly favors one party.
The decision has potential implications for similar retaliation claims in academic settings, where employees may have complex relationships with multiple levels of administration. The ruling suggests that inappropriate communication with senior officials can constitute grounds for termination regardless of an employee's disability status or use of protected leave.
This case joins a body of Seventh Circuit precedent addressing the intersection of disability discrimination laws and employment at-will principles in academic institutions. The court's emphasis on legitimate business reasons for termination reflects ongoing judicial reluctance to second-guess employer decisions absent clear evidence of discriminatory intent.