No specific laws identified for this ruling.
The court denied both parties' cross-motions for summary judgment on the ADA failure-to-accommodate claim, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Kottke was a qualified individual and whether PetSmart engaged in the interactive process; the court granted summary judgment for PetSmart on the discrimination claim.
Kottke v. PetSmart Inc. (2018)
What Happened
An employee named Kottke sued PetSmart, claiming the company failed to accommodate a disability and discriminated against them. The case centered on whether PetSmart properly worked with Kottke to find workplace adjustments that would allow them to perform their job despite their disability.
What the Court Decided
The court reached a mixed decision. On the accommodation claim, the judge found there were genuine questions of fact that needed further investigation—specifically, whether Kottke qualified for protection under disability law and whether PetSmart made a good-faith effort to discuss possible accommodations. However, the court dismissed the discrimination claim entirely, ruling in PetSmart's favor.
Why This Matters for Workers
This case highlights that disability accommodation disputes often require careful examination of the facts. While Kottke didn't win on summary judgment, the case wasn't completely dismissed either. The ruling reminds employers that they must genuinely engage in discussions about workplace adjustments for employees with disabilities, and that courts will scrutinize whether they did so properly.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 3 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.