U.S. District Judge Sara Darrow granted in part and denied in part the Zoo’s motion for summary judgment on April 22. The court dismissed Kilgore’s hostile work environment claims but allowed her failure to accommodate, disparate treatment, and retaliation claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Illinois Human Rights Act to survive.
Kilgore, who has paralysis on one side of her body due to a stroke, worked as a seasonal receptionist at the Zoo in 2023. She requires a lower table to eat comfortably due to her mobility limitations. The Zoo’s breakroom tables were too tall for her to use, and she began eating lunch on a hallway bench. Zoo Director Lee Jackson directed staff to tell Kilgore not to eat there, citing appropriateness concerns.
The Zoo offered two alternatives: moving a regular-height chair into the breakroom or eating at Assistant Registrar Jan Williams’s desk when Williams was not working. Kilgore argued these options were inadequate because the tall table remained unusable with the lower chair, and Williams’s shift often overlapped with Kilgore’s lunch break, forcing Kilgore to leave early or throw away her food.
Judge Darrow held that a genuine dispute of material fact exists regarding whether the Zoo provided a reasonable accommodation. The court noted that a jury could find that relying on an employee’s late arrival to facilitate a disabled employee’s lunch break was not a reasonable solution.
The court also found a factual dispute over whether the Zoo engaged in the interactive process. While Zoo office manager Hannah Stockton testified she offered Kilgore use of a conservation classroom, Kilgore testified she was never given that option. The court ruled this conflicting testimony must be resolved by a jury.
Regarding disparate treatment, Kilgore alleged the Zoo declined to rehire her for the 2024 season because of her disability. Stockton cited Kilgore’s lack of computer confidence and performance errors as the reason for non-rehire. However, Stockton admitted she never documented these concerns or followed formal disciplinary procedures.
The court found that the lack of documentation and the contradictory accounts of Kilgore’s performance created a dispute over whether the Zoo’s stated reasons were pretextual. Consequently, the disparate treatment claim survives summary judgment.
The retaliation claim also survived. Although the temporal proximity between Kilgore’s accommodation requests and her non-rehire was not strong, the court relied on the same pretext findings from the disparate treatment analysis. The court noted that an employer’s dishonest explanation of a decision can support an inference of retaliatory motive.
The hostile work environment claims were dismissed. Judge Darrow concluded that while Kilgore’s lunch situation was isolating and humiliating, it did not rise to the level of severity or pervasiveness required to alter the conditions of her employment. The court found no evidence that the lack of a lunch spot unreasonably interfered with her work performance.
The case is scheduled for trial on November 30, 2026.