Last month, the Sixth Circuit affirmed an employer’s summary judgment on an ADA failure-to-accommodate claim when the employee failed to obtain medical information clarifying his sought accommodation as requested by the defendant employer. Stover v. Amazon.com LLC, No. 21-5421 (6th Cir. 1/10/22). His initial inquiries were deemed too vague to constitute a request for a reasonable accommodation and his failure to support his own clarification with any medical documentation from his physician constituted an abandonment of the reasonable accommodation process. Therefore, the employer was not required to grant his requests.
According to the Court’s opinion, the plaintiff call center employee
requested a reduced work schedule to accommodate his gastrointestinal
impairment and need for unscheduled restroom breaks. After he failed to submit any medical
documentation to support his first request, his request was administratively
closed. He later submitted a second request, supported
with note from his physician indicating that he needed to have a restroom “readily
available.” When asked for
clarification, the employee indicated that his work hours should be reduced
from 40 to 32 and approval to use the restroom whenever he has an episode, but
never provided any medical documentation to support this clarification. Accordingly, his request was closed without
approval. Dissatisfied with the employer’s
process, the plaintiff never sought another accommodation.
Meanwhile, his job performance was found to be deficient,
which he usually blamed on his hardware, etc.
He was observed, among other things, being rude to customers and
avoiding new calls near the end of his shifts.
Although his equipment was replaced, he continued to have performance
issues. He was then warned about his excessive breaks, but he refused to pursue
the reasonable accommodation process again even when encouraged to do so. When his performance did not improve, he was
terminated.
The Court found that the plaintiff could not show that he
had requested a reasonable accommodation when he had abandoned the reasonable
accommodation process. His initial
requests and physician notes – for “more breaks” and a “readily accessible”
restroom – lacked
specificity, so much so that they were tantamount to failing to make any accommodation request whatsoever. An employee, after all, must “reasonably inform” an employer about the nature of the requested accommodation, thereby putting the employer on notice of whether and what type of accommodation might be appropriate.
When the plaintiff later requested a reduced work schedule
and ability to use the restroom whenever he had an episode, he failed to
provide the supporting medical documentation reasonably requested by the
employer.
[He] did not follow up, however, with supporting medical documentation to give Amazon fair notice of his needs. Instead, he repeatedly disclaimed any interest in seeking an accommodation. [His] failures in this regard rendered his bathroom-accommodations claims subject to summary judgment.
In litigation, he claimed that he had made another
request -- for leave to seek medical
treatment every 8 weeks. However, there
was no evidence that he had ever requested this accommodation. Moreover, there was no evidence of any medical
information submitted by any physician to support this request.
To avoid the weakness of his evidence, the plaintiff argued
that he was not required to participate in the employer’s process when he deemed
them to be futile:
employees poured cold water on his initial accommodation inquiries, justifying his decision to deem the process futile. But Stover cannot dictate the terms of his accommodation or refuse reasonable requests by those designated to evaluate his accommodation inquiries.
The Court also rejected his retaliation claim because he
could not show that the reason for his termination – his manipulation of the
computer system to avoid taking customer calls near the end of his shift.” This is a basic reason to terminate
employment. The employer was able to
articulate its belief in his misconduct.
“Under the settled “honest belief rule,” so long as Amazon made a
“reasonably informed and considered decision” based on “particularized facts,”
no reasonable juror could infer that its reason for firing Stover was
pretextual.” He essentially admitted the
infractions, which were similar enough to his other misconduct – being rude to
customers – to mirror his pattern of rude behavior. His “bathroom needs, in other words, were the
least of Amazon’s problems with him.”
Moreover, he had given a variety of reasons for taking excessive breaks –
a malfunctioning computer and food poisoning, etc. – that undermined his claim
that his disability motivated the termination decision.
True, [the plaintiff] did, on one occasion, tell [his manager] that his Crohn’s disease was the cause of his excessive breaks. But that was one cause among many, including food poisoning and a mischievous computer. There is no evidence to suggest that [his] Crohn’s disease motivated [her] to initiate [his] separation any more than any other reason [he] provided for his misconduct. More to the point, far from showcasing a discriminatory intent, [his manager], in her discussion with [him] about his excessive breaks, encouraged [him] to seek an ADA accommodation, hardly the makings of a discrimination claim. [The plaintiff], for the most part, viewed his dispute with [his manager] as personal in nature, not one motivated by some sort of hidden discriminatory intent. In short, no reasonable jury could conclude that Amazon’s proffered reasons for cutting ties with [him] were pretextual.
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.
