the required DOT waiver, Long is not qualified for the position of a CTA bus operator.
Long also argues that the CTA still should have hired him even though he did not have the required waiver. This argument is meritless. Long applied for the position of bus operator. He does not allege that he applied for or was qualified for any other position with the CTA. As discussed, Long was not "qualified" to operate a CTA bus. Thus, the CTA did not violate the ADA when it allegedly refused to hire Long for the position of bus driver. See Sieberns v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 125 F.3d 1019, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 26898, 1997 WL 577703, at *2-4 (7th Cir. 1997).
There is one important point which the court must emphasize at this time. On October 21, 1997, Long filed a Motion to Inform the Court that the United States Department of Transportation Granted a Training Waiver on Behalf of Bryant Long. In the motion, Long informs the court that on September 15, 1997, DOT issued Long a waiver to allow Long to participate in the CTA's training program. The fact that DOT granted Long a training waiver does nothing to affect this court's opinion. The Seventh Circuit has explicitly stated that "the determination of whether an individual is a 'qualified individual with a disability' must be made at the time of the employment decision." Bombard, 92 F.3d at 563. Long's complaint unequivocally establishes that he had not obtained the requisite waiver at the time that Long filed the charge of discrimination with the EEOC or at the time he filed suit in this court. Thus, at the time the CTA allegedly refused to hire Long, he did not have the waiver, and it is at that point to which the court must look to determine whether Long was a "qualified individual with a disability."
In sum, Long can prove no set of facts consistent with the complaint that would demonstrate he is a "qualified individual with a disability." Long has alleged facts which establish that he was not qualified for position of bus driver at the time that the CTA allegedly refused to hire him. Thus, because he is unable to state a claim for disability discrimination under the ADA, Long's complaint is dismissed.
For the foregoing reasons, the court grants defendant Chicago Transit Authority's motion to dismiss plaintiff Bryant Long's complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Plaintiff Bryant Long's complaint is dismissed.
Date: OCT 27 1997
James H. Alesia
United States District Judge
JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE
Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have been tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.
IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED Defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is granted. Plaintiff's amended complaint is dismissed. Plaintiff did not have the requisite United States Department of Transportation waiver at the time the adverse employment decision was made. No motions for reconsideration will be entertained.