On Monday, a divided Sixth Circuit affirmed an employer’s summary judgment on claims of failure to accommodate and disability discrimination and retaliation. Woodie v. Motorola Solutions, Inc., No. 24-3257 (6th Cir. 3/10/25). A unanimous Court found that the plaintiff could not show pretext, retaliation or disability discrimination when he had been terminated after repeatedly being abrasive to customers and colleagues and often threatened to resign when given feedback or removed from assignments. Noting that he had objected to his work and travel schedule for multiple reasons, a divided Court found that he had failed to request a reasonable accommodation or start the interactive process when he refused to contact the employer’s accommodation department despite referrals each time he requested a schedule change because of his health. The dissent acknowledged this to be a possible failure to commence the interactive process, but concluded that the employer had a duty to do more than refer him to HR, which should have reached out to him to discuss the issue after his request to his supervisors for a scheduling accommodation.
According to the Court’s opinion, the plaintiff claimed to
suffer from nocturnal epilepsy. His job
involved traveling 75% of the time, including weekends, but not, apparently,
evenings or nights. When the travel was
increased to 80%, he objected vigorously on behalf of all employees and
continued to complain for the remainder of his employment. He apparently offended customers and
colleagues by intruding on the duties and responsibilities of others and
insisting on doing everything his own way.
He was removed from one job at a customer’s request for being arrogant
and abusive. He was removed from other
jobs as well under similar circumstances.
He usually responded to feedback and adverse employment assignments by
threatening to resign and was insubordinate to his supervisors. A few times, he requested vague schedule changes
on account of his health. However, every
time he was referred by his supervisors to Human Resources to pursue a possible
schedule change/accommodation, he declined to do so. Ultimately, he was terminated without cause
on account of his inability to modify his offensive and insubordinate comments despite
multiple coaching. He found another job
the next day and was only unemployed for a month. He filed suit alleging failure to
accommodate, disability discrimination and retaliation. The employer obtained summary judgment.
The Sixth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the claims. The unanimous panel agreed that he had no
direct evidence of disability discrimination and could not show that the reason
for his termination was pretextual. He
admitted to making insubordinate comments and threatening to resign repeatedly
when he did not get his own way. He also
did not deny that multiple customers had requested his removal from their projects
because of his toxic attitude and that he did not get along well with his
colleagues.
The Court also refused to infer pretext from the fact that
his termination was coded “without cause,” meaning that he could possibly be
rehired when the employer contended that it had fired him for cause as described
above.
The Court’s majority found that his steadfast refusal to pursue
a reasonable accommodation through HR despite multiple referrals by his
supervisors constituted a failure to request an accommodation. (It also indicated a breakdown in the
interactive process on his part). The majority
focused on his failure to provide medical documentation of his disability (even
though the employer never specifically requested it at this point).
On numerous occasions when [the plaintiff]
requested a travel change based on his disability, his supervisors and HR
directed him to OHR in the event he need an accommodation. Even before
requesting travel changes, [he] told . .
. , his immediate supervisor, that he had nocturnal epilepsy. [His supervisor]
directed [him] to contact OHR if he needed an accommodation, and he offered to
contact OHR for him. Woodie declined. When [he] asked [a manager] for a
schedule change, [that person] told him that he didn’t have the authority to
provide an accommodation for a disability; such a request had to go through
OHR. So he told [him] to contact OHR. [Yet
another supervisor] also told [the plaintiff] he had to go to OHR to request a
disability accommodation. [That person] then notified an “HR person that [he]
ha[d] somebody that might be requesting a medical accommodation.” . . . [The
plaintiff] mentioned his medical condition to . . . a
Human Resources Business Partner, who told [him] that he could “always apply
for a reasonable accommodation if needed” and gave him the OHR policy. . . . [He] again declined.
[The plaintiff] was thus aware of [the
employer’s] process for requesting a disability accommodation. He was given the
policy, and at each turn, his supervisors directed him to contact OHR because
only OHR could determine whether [he] was disabled and needed an accommodation.
[One supervisor] contacted HR to inform them of a possible pending request, and
[he] discussed his disability with HR. Despite all of that, at no time in his
employment with [the employer] did [he] contact OHR. [He] thus failed to
request an accommodation sufficient to start the interactive process under the
ADA. . . .
The dissent, however, agreed that the plaintiff’s refusal to
contact HR could constitute a breakdown in the interactive process, but would
have faulted the employer for not doing more than refer him to HR. Instead, the dissent found that this request
to his supervisors was sufficient to constitute a request for a reasonable
accommodation and it was the employer which had the duty to reach out to him
instead of setting up a process where he had to contact HR.
But [his] failure to follow [the
employer’s] policy goes to [his] participation in the interactive process; it
does not impact whether he requested an accommodation. . . .
. . . . Here, too, [his] failure to follow [the
employer’s] accommodation policy is relevant—not to whether he requested an
accommodation— but to whether he caused a breakdown in the interactive process.
Once [he] requested a reasonable
accommodation, [the employer] “ha[d] a duty to engage in an interactive
process.” . . . This duty “requires the employer to initiate
an informal, interactive process, in order to identify the precise limitations
resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that
could overcome those limitations.” . . .
. This process is mandatory and both
parties must participate in good faith. . . .
. . .. Courts should also “attempt to isolate
the cause of the breakdown [in the interactive process] and then assign
responsibility.” . . . Thus, if [he] caused the breakdown in the
process, he cannot recover for [the employer’s] failure to accommodate or
failure to engage in the interactive process. . . . .
There is a genuine factual dispute
about whether [the employer] caused the breakdown in the interactive process. [He]
repeatedly requested a reasonable accommodation from his supervisors starting
in November 2020. Yet no one at [the employer] ever engaged with him to
determine an appropriate accommodation, even though [it] had “a duty [to]
inquire further.”
True, [his] supervisors told him to
contact [the employer’s] human resources department about filing a formal
request, which he did not do. Even so, our precedent and EEOC Guidance both
suggest that the ADA required [it] to do more than just refer [him] to human
resources. We have held that an employer participates in the interactive
process in good faith when “it readily meets with the employee, discusses any
reasonable accommodations, and suggests other possible [accommodations].” . . .
. . .
Moreover, [his] failure to follow [its]
accommodation policy did not excuse [it] from engaging in the interactive
process. . . .
An employee’s failure to file a
formal accommodation request does not end the interactive process. True, “an
employer may ask the individual to fill out a form or submit the request in
written form,” and can also ask that the employee provide “reasonable
documentation” related to his disability. See EEOC Guidance, at ¶ 3; . . . And where the employee’s disability or need
for accommodation “is not obvious,” the employee is not entitled to an
accommodation if he refuses to provide such documentation. . . . “the employer
cannot ignore the initial request,” id. at ¶ 3, and “failure by the employer to
initiate or participate in an informal dialogue with the individual after
receiving a request for reasonable accommodation could [still] result in
liability for failure to provide a reasonable accommodation,” id. at ¶ 6. That
is exactly what [the employer] did here—ignore [his] initial requests for an
accommodation just because he never filled out a form.
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.
