On Tuesday, the Sixth Circuit mostly affirmed a jury’s $588K
award in an ADA case (not including attorneys’ fees), but agreed that the
plaintiff should have been reinstated instead of awarded front pay under the
circumstances and agreed that he had failed to carry his burden of showing lost
medical insurance benefits. Gunther v. Bemis Company, Inc., No. 17-6144/6185 (6th Cir. 10-16-18). Based on
testimony from plaintiff and his co-workers, the jury was entitled to conclude
that overhead lifting was not an essential job function even though it was in
his job description. The testimony
showed that employees typically helped each other with such lifting. The Court rejected the employer’s argument
about mitigation of damages because the older and functionally illiterate
plaintiff was not able to find replacement employment that did not require him
to read.
According to the Court’s opinion, the plaintiff employee suffered
a shoulder injury while working and had been placed on temporary light duty. The employer accommodated his temporary
lifting restrictions and kept him on light duty for 18 months, when they met
with him for an hour, placed on leave and then fired him four months later on
the grounds that he could not safely perform the essential functions of his
position as reflected in his carefully drafted job description.
Several employees testified that the plaintiff could perform
the essential functions of his position with reasonable accommodations because
they typically helped each other with lifting and had equipment to help lift as
well.
Although an employer’s job description provides evidence of a
job’s essential functions, 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8), it is “not dispositive,” Rorrer v. City of Stow, 743 F.3d 1025,
1039 (6th Cir. 2014). Yes, [the
employer] presented evidence that it carefully composed the press assistant job
description. But the jury also heard
evidence that these requirements were not essential, and the company and other
employees did not treat them as essential.
[The employer] adds that [Plaintiff] cannot establish his
qualifications for the job based on the option that other employees could help
lift heavy equipment. Employers, it is
no doubt true, need not “accommodate individuals by shifting an essential job
function onto others.” Hoskins v. Oakland Cty. Sheriff’s Dep’t,
227 F.3d 719, 729 (6th Cir. 2000). But
the argument assumes that these tasks amount to essential functions that a
single employee must be able to handle.
The jury heard evidence to the contrary—that press workers often ask for
and receive help with certain tasks—permitting it to find that this was not an
indispensable task for individual employees.
See Camp v. BI-LO, LLC, 662 F.
App’x 357, 362–63 (6th Cir. 2016). In
the last analysis, [Plaintiff] presented sufficient evidence to create a
triable issue of fact over the essential job requirements of a press operator,
making the final resolution one for the jury, not for us.
The Court rejected the employer’s argument that $181K in
back pay should be reduced because the plaintiff did not sufficiently mitigate
his damages. The Plaintiff quit school
in the 8th grade and claimed that he could not read the help
ads. He applied for a few jobs, but they
did not offer many hours, or comparable pay. In fact, he would not have qualified for his
prior position, which required reading.
The jury could find that the plaintiff had been reasonably diligent in
searching for new employment.
The Court agreed that the plaintiff should have been
reinstated instead of being awarded $315K front pay. The employer had indicated that it would
agree to reinstatement if the jury ruled in his favor and the plaintiff
requested reinstatement, but the trial court had refused to permit the jury to
order reinstatement on the grounds that it was not safe for the plaintiff to
return to work (a conclusion that the jury implicitly rejected in its verdict). There was no evidence of hostility between
the employer and plaintiff. Although the
employer had argued on the merits that the plaintiff could not safely perform
his job, it was permitted to concede that if the jury found otherwise then he
could be reinstated. Although the front
pay award was vacated, the matter was remanded to the trial court to
re-determine the pay award because the plant had closed after the trial. The plaintiff would be awarded pay from the
time of trial until when the plant closed, as well as any other potential
remedy given to laid off employees, such as severance pay or transfer to
another plant.
The Court agreed that the Plaintiff did not show his
entitlement to $92K in compensatory damages for lost insurance benefits. At most he testified that he joined his wife’s
insurance plan after his termination, but he did not offer any evidence of how
much more expensive it was and whether he incurred any medical expenses that
were previously covered by the defendant employer’s medical plan.
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.
