Jacek Jablonski v. Beloit Health System, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted January 5, 2023*
Decided January 5, 2023
Before
DIANE S. SYKES, Chief Judge
DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge
CANDACE JACKSON-AKIWUMI, Circuit Judge
No. 22-1953
JACEK JABLONSKI,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BELOIT HEALTH SYSTEM, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin.
No. 20-cv-886-wmc
William M. Conley,
Judge.
O R D E R
Beloit Health System, Inc., fired Dr. Jacek Jablonski, citing non-compliance with
his employment agreement. He sued the company, which refers to itself as “BHS,”
asserting that it violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a),
and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), see id. § 12112(a). The district judge
* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and
record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not
significantly aid the court. F ED. R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 4 --

No. 22-1953 Page 2
entered summary judgment for BHS. Jablonski appeals, but his briefs do not contain a
cogent argument for reversal. We therefore dismiss the appeal.
We view the record evidence in the light most favorable to Jablonski. Parker v.
Brooks Life Sci., Inc., 39 F.4th 931, 936 (7th Cir. 2022). Jablonski is of Polish origin and is a
British citizen. He obtained his medical degree in Poland and completed fellowships in
the United Kingdom. After a four-year residency in the United States, he achieved
specialist certification in anesthesiology and critical care in the European Union, which
is the equivalent of board certification in the United States. He also has multiple
disabilities: depression, diabetes, high blood pressure, cellulitis, metabolic and pain
disorders, obstructive sleep apnea, and insomnia.
In late 2018, BHS hired Jablonski as a general and cardiac anesthesiologist. His
contract was with BHS, which also sponsored his work visa, but Jablonski had a dual
reporting structure. Administratively, he reported to BHS leadership, including Vice
President and Chief Nursing Officer Dr. Sharon Cox. But senior physicians from
Stateline Anesthesiologists, a third-party company that employed the other BHS
anesthesiologists, supervised his clinical work.
Jablonski’s employment contract directed him to comply with applicable board-
eligibility requirements. Because he completed his residency before 2012, his eligibility
for the American Board of Anesthesiology expired at the end of 2018. But Jablonski did
not take the required exams to reestablish board eligibility. When Cox inquired about
his efforts to obtain certification, he explained that he missed the exam because of
illness and that he would reschedule. Later, when Cox asked again, he replied that he
did not “need” the exam but would sit for it during the summer.
A few months into his employment, Jablonski began to miss work frequently
because of vacations and illness. He scheduled six weeks of vacation time in the first
four months of 2019. He did not notify Cox, as required; instead, he placed his planned
absences on Stateline’s internal schedule. For unscheduled absences, Jablonski did not
notify Cox, but he contacted a hospital administrator and sent text messages to his
Stateline supervisors. After missing work for several days in April 2019, Jablonski
contacted Cox to inform her that he was ill and intended to take a medical leave for
approximately two weeks. He provided a doctor’s note excusing his absence through
April 19, 2019. After the two weeks, he sent a text message to a Stateline physician
saying that he would need at least another week of leave.

-- 2 of 4 --

No. 22-1953 Page 3
Jablonski did not return to work after his medical note expired. On April 22, Cox
requested an update about his condition and his plan to return to work. The next week,
he submitted an updated doctor’s note excusing him for another month. The next day,
BHS fired Jablonski, citing both his non-compliance with scheduling and call-off
procedures and his failure to obtain board certification, both violations of his contract.
Represented by counsel, Jablonski sued BHS under Title VII and the ADA,
alleging that the company discriminated against and wrongfully fired him based on his
national origin (Polish) and his disabilities. Eventually, BHS moved for summary
judgment, and the district judge granted the motion. First, regarding his Title VII claim,
the district judge concluded that Jablonski did not produce sufficient evidence that he
was fired because of his Polish national origin. See Johnson v. Advoc. Health and Hosp.
Corp., 892 F.3d 887, 893–94 (7th Cir. 2018) (citations omitted). Further, no other
anesthesiologists within the hospital system were direct employees of BHS or subject to
its employment rules. Thus, the judge explained, Jablonski did not show that any
similarly situated employee received more favorable treatment or otherwise
demonstrate that BHS discriminated against him. See Nigro v. Indiana Univ. Health Care
Assocs., Inc., 40 F.4th 488, 491 (7th Cir. 2022) (citations omitted). As for the ADA claim,
the judge concluded that an employee who needs long-term medical leave cannot work,
and thus, is not a “qualified individual” under the ADA. See Severson v. Heartland
Woodcraft, Inc., 872 F.3d 476, 479 (7th Cir. 2017). And a multi-month leave is not a
reasonable accommodation under the ADA. Id. Alternatively, Jablonski lacked evidence
that BHS fired him because of his disabilities: Cox and other members of BHS
leadership were unaware of any medical conditions before Jablonski took medical
leave, and he never requested accommodations. And there was nothing submitted to
dispute BHS’s evidence that it fired Jablonski because his supervisors believed he
breached multiple requirements of his employment agreement.
Jablonski, now pro se, appeals the decision, but BHS correctly argues that he has
forfeited review by filing a deficient brief that does not engage with the reasons he lost
in the district court. See Klein v. O'Brien, 884 F.3d 754, 757 (7th Cir. 2018). He primarily
challenges the wisdom of various terms of his employment contract, disparages his BHS
supervisors, and touts his medical credentials. He also generally criticizes the district
judge’s ruling and his perceived bias. We are mindful that Jablonski is pro se, and we
construe his filings liberally. Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001). But
even a pro se appellant must lodge an argument that states his “contentions and the
reasons for them.” F ED. R. A PP . P. 28(a)(8), see Anderson, 241 F.3d at 545. And we cannot
generate arguments or conduct legal research on his behalf. Id.

-- 3 of 4 --

No. 22-1953 Page 4
We therefore DISMISS the appeal.

-- 4 of 4 --