The hotel moved for summary judgement, which the District Court granted. The District Court held that Hirmiz had failed to present evidence that he is disabled within the meaning of the ADA, that he had engaged in any protected activity before his termination, or that the complaint he’d filed with OSHA had played any role in his termination.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed. It noted that there is debate in the medical community over whether sensitivity to electromagnetic voltage is a physical disorder or a psychological one. Regardless, Hirmiz had provided no evidence—medical or otherwise—that he suffers from any “impairment” that “substantially limits” any of his “major life activities,” as required under the ADA. Furthermore, he did not prove that he fits either of the other definitions of “disability” in the ADA - i.e. a “record” of such an impairment or that he was “regarded as having” one by his employer..
Further, Hirmiz did not engage in any protected activity as he did not seek an accommodation or complain of discrimination (until after he was fired). Nor had he shown any causal link between his OSHA complaint and his termination. Finally , the hotel had provided valid reasons for firing Hirmiz.
Hirmiz tried to give us new evidence regarding his medical condition however, new evidence may not be presented on appeal.