In the vein of “be careful what you ask for,” two different courts last week ruled against employees with medical issues. In the first case, an employee with a serious disability and who required a medical leave of absence admittedly asked to be laid off so that he could received enhanced unemployment compensation during COVID because the employer did not have a paid leave program. Bair v. Crystal Glass, No. 24-1390 (6th Cir. 12/3/24). Although he had been told that he could not return to work without a medical release from his physician, he never provided one and, instead, sued under the ADA. The court summarily ruled against him because he received the accommodation that he requested.
In the second case, the employee’s FMLA approval and
accommodation agreement for his sleep apnea and narcolepsy had expired years
earlier and he had failed to update them with a medical statement from a
practicing physician because his former physician had retired. Price
v. Cellco Partnership, 2024-Ohio-5697.
When he requested July 2022 additional
breaks to deal with stress and sleep deprivation, his request was denied
because he could not support it with a physician’s statement. He did not request any other accommodations or
leave before resigning without notice in May 2023. “He also admitted that he
did not take any other actions to avoid quitting on May 11, 2023.” Indeed, he still had not found another
physician as of the time of the unemployment hearing. As a
result, his claim for unemployment benefits was denied on the grounds that he
quit his employment without a good reason.
The court rejected his argument that it would have been futile
to ask for another reasonable accommodation:
[He] also asserts that asking
whether alternative/comparable positions were available would have been futile
because finding a position that could be performed while operating under only
30 minutes of nightly sleep would have been difficult or even impossible. . . . Nevertheless, the onus was on [him] to make
the request. The record is clear—indeed, [he] concedes—that he did not. Thus,
the Commission’s finding that [he] voluntarily quit his job without just cause
is supported by competent, credible evidence, and he is not entitled to
unemployment compensation benefits. . . .
In sum, as the trial court and the
Commission found, an ordinarily intelligent person would have inquired whether
comparable jobs that could accommodate his medical conditions were available
(and then not being offered any such opportunities, if any) prior to quitting
his position. In addition, an ordinarily intelligent person would have pursued
a potential FMLA-related leave more diligently by taking additional steps to
obtain the required medical documentation for such a leave (as [he] had done in
the past). Competent, credible evidence shows that [he] did not do
either—indeed, [his] own testimony readily shows this. Thus, competent,
credible evidence shows Price voluntarily abandoned his job without just cause.
Therefore, he is not entitled to unemployment compensation benefits.
. . .
There is no evidence in the record
that [the employer] was planning on discharging [him]. Indeed, [he] himself
testified that no one from [the employer] told him he was going to be
terminated; nor was he ever asked to resign in lieu of being discharged . . .
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.
