Sixth Circuit Rejects ADA and FMLA Claims of Poor Manager

On Friday, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the summary judgment dismissal of ADA and FMLA claims brought by a manager that was terminated for poor performance.   Nilles v. Givaudan Flavors Corp., No. 12-3673 (6^th Cir. 3-29-13).  In that case, the plaintiff was terminated for poor performance as a manager six months after his most recent FMLA leave.  The decision was made after one of his subordinates resigned, citing his poor leadership and was implemented after a second subordinate resigned with the same explanation.  Almost a year passed between the time the termination decision was made before it was implemented and he had received a raise and an average performance evaluation in the meantime (which also discussed his poor managerial skills).  The Court found that the plaintiff could not prevail on his ADA claim because he had only informed HR manager of his MS diagnosis, had asked that it be kept confidential and could not show that it had been revealed to the decisionmaker (although the HR manager at issue was aware of the termination decision and assisted in its implementation).   He could not show that the decisionmaker was aware of an ADA disability simply from the fact that he had taken a few sick leaves.  He also could not show FMLA retaliation because six months had passed between the time of his most recent FMLA leave and his termination and because the decision had been made before his FMLA leaves.  Finally, he could not show any pretext from the business justification given by the employer.

Some of the more notable statements from the Court included:

·        While [the plaintiff] argues that “the knowledge requirement is met if the legal entity was on notice” of his disability,  . . . , existing case law makes clear that an employee cannot be considered to have been fired “on the basis of disability” unless the individual decision-maker who fired the individual had knowledge of that disability.

·        [The plaintiff] does not contest that [his manager] was the sole decision-maker for his termination and admits that he told no one at Givaudan about his MS except [the HR Manager]. Furthermore, [the HR Manager] specifically stated in his affidavit that, at [the plaintiff’s] request, he told no one else at Givaudan about [his] disability.  [The plaintiff] presents no evidence to refute [the HR Manager’s] statement or otherwise suggest that [the decisionmaker] knew of his MS. Instead, [the plaintiff] argues only that a jury must be allowed “to evaluate whether [HR Manager’s] knowledge should be imputed to [the decisionmaker].” . . . . “The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of [his] position [is] insufficient’” to allow us to draw the speculative inference that [the HR Manager] lied in his affidavit and in fact did relay [the plaintiff’s] medical information to [the decisionmaker].

·        In addition, [the plaintiff] asks us to assume that  [the HR Manager’s] knowledge can be imputed to [the decisionmaker] because “[the HR Manager] advised [the decisionmaker] regarding the consolidation of the purchasing manager positions.” . . . . The record contains no evidence, however, to dispute [the HR Manager’s] assertion that he only spoke with [the decisionmaker] about the process for firing [the plaintiff], as was his job as a human resources employee, and never made any recommendations on the substance behind [his] termination. Again, without any evidence to suggest that [the HR Manager] played a substantive role in [the plaintiffs’s] firing, [he] cannot ask us to speculate that such conduct occurred.

·        Knowledge of an employee’s symptoms, however, does not necessarily equate to knowledge of his disability.

 NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.