violates the ADA unless it -can- demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on its business operations. Id. at 1134. Gatlin requested a light duty position when she was released to work after her surgery. The light duty program--at the Summit Police Department is a pool of temporary jobs designed to allow injured employees to work while they return to good health. Such positions are-“exactly what the ADA encourages;” Watson v. Lithonia Lighting, 304 F.3d 749, 752 (7th Cir.2002); see also, e.g., Hendricks-Robinson v. Excel Corp., 154 F.3d 685, 696 (7th Cir.1998). Summit argues, -however, that there were no light duty positions available and that Gatlin did not qualify for a light duty position because her injury was not temporary. See Watson, 304 F.3d at 752 (<HOLDING>); The argument that Gatlin did not qualify for
holding that the majority view is that employers are not liable for theft committed by employees holding that employers are not required to allow employees to occupy light duty position indefinitely if such positions are meant to be rotating and temporary holding that probation department employees are not county employees holding that officials are entitled to qualified immunity unless at the time of the dismissal it was clearly established that employees in the particular positions at issue in light of the responsibilities inherent in those positions were constitutionally protected from patronage dismissal  holding that employers are not liable for conduct of ordinary employees because an ordinary employees conduct will normally be so unrelated to the employers business that it cannot be deemed in furtherance thereof