Sixth Circuit Finds Employee Was Denied Reasonable Accommodation, but Not Constructively Discharged

Last month, the Sixth Circuit reversed summary judgment for an employer on an ADA claim, but affirmed summary judgment on sex discrimination and constructive discharge claims.   Gleed v. AT&T Mobility Services, No. 14-2088 (6^th Cir. 6-4-15).   After the employer denied the plaintiff a reasonable accommodation that it provided for a pregnant employee and denied him a schedule adjustment for necessary medical care, the employee quit and sued.   The Court found that permitting the employee to sit when necessary was a reasonable accommodation, particularly when the employer permitted other employees to do so and it would allow him to work without pain.  Also, the employer could not insist on the employee utilizing its particular ADA process without proof that the employee was informed about it.   The employee’s request for a schedule change was likely reasonable as well, but the employee was at fault for the failure of the interactive process when he quit after his schedule request was denied instead of informing the employer that its suggestion – that he take unpaid leave and then apply for backpay – was unacceptable.   The Court also held that the denial of reasonable accommodations did not render his working conditions intolerable so as to render his resignation a constructive discharge.  Finally, the Court affirmed dismissal of the sex discrimination claim on the basis that he suffered no adverse employment action since his working conditions never changed.

According to the Court’s opinion, the employee suffered from a chronic skin infection which became worse when he stood for prolonged periods.   After he was transferred to a new store without desks, he was required to stand for long periods during his shift.  He brought a medical note to his manager requesting him to sit as needed, as a pregnant co-worker was permitted.  His request was refused because he was not pregnant. Seven months later, he developed a life-threatening infection which required daily IV antibiotic treatments.  He requested to change his work schedule so that he would not miss work for his medical treatment, but his manager denied his request.  He then called Human Resources to ask about his options, but was told that his only option was to take unpaid leave and then seek back pay.  He never specifically suggested adjusting his schedule.  When his doctor told him that he could die without the medical treatments, he resigned the next day and brought suit.

On appeal, the Court found that letting the plaintiff sit on a stool during his shift seemed reasonable since it would alleviate his pain and decrease his risk of another skin infection. The only argument which the employer raised was that the accommodation was not necessary because the plaintiff was physically capable of performing his job, even if he was in pain and risked his health.  In short, it argued that if the plaintiff “was physically capable of doing his job—no matter the pain or risk to his health—then it had no obligation to provide him with any accommodation, reasonable or not.”   The Court concluded that the ADA requires employers to provide disabled employees with similar benefits as non-disabled employees – i.e., the ability to work without pain.  “29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1)(iii). Here, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to [the plaintiff], he needed a chair to work—as other employees do—without great pain and a heightened risk of infection.” 

The employer then argued that the plaintiff never properly requested an accommodation.  Under it policy, employees are first to submit requests to their supervisors and then to call the HR Service Center.   However, the plaintiff only asked his supervisor about the stool and not HR or the  Service Center.  The Court rejected this argument because the plaintiff testified that he never saw this policy and the employer could not prove otherwise.  

The Court rejected the plaintiff’s claim concerning the denial of his schedule adjustment to receive necessary medical care because he quit the ADA interactive process too soon.  The ADA requires both parties to participate in good faith to resolve the ADA issues. “If the process “fails to lead to [a] reasonable accommodation,” then “responsibility will lie with the party that caused the breakdown.”  In this case, the plaintiff never informed the employer that its proposal – to take unpaid leave and apply for backpay – was unacceptable.  Instead, he resigned the next day.  Because the plaintiff caused the ADA process to break down over this request, his claim was denied.  

The Court next denied his sex discrimination claim, which challenged the denial of his stool request when it was provided to a pregnant employee.  The Court found that only materially adverse employment actions were actionable and the plaintiff had failed to identify any material adverse changes in his employment.   The employer’s denial of his request to sit on a stool did not change his working conditions and, therefore, was not actionable.   (I have to wonder how this argument works when an employee is denied a promotion or a raise or a transfer . . . . . ).  

Finally, the Court rejected the constructive discharge claim because the denial of his accommodation requests did not render his working conditions objectively intolerable.  

But the denial of an accommodation, by itself, is not sufficient to prove that an employer constructively discharged an employee. . . . . And [the plaintiff] points to nothing else in the record that suggests [his supervisor’s] real purpose in denying [the plaintiff’s] requests was to force [him] to resign  . . . Thus, no reasonable jury could find that [the employer] intended to force him to quit, and summary judgment was therefore proper on this claim too.

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 be changed or 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.