Earlier this month, the Sixth Circuit affirmed an employer’s summary judgment on a Rehabilitation Act failure to accommodate claim because the employee abandoned the interactive process, and had always disputed that she required any accommodation to perform her job duties. Morgan v. Ohio Dep’t of Rehab. & Corr., No. 25-3722 (6th Cir. 4-14-26). Employees who are only “regarded as” disabled are not entitled to a reasonable accommodation. Further, although she had been given the option of seeking a reasonable accommodation, she rejected that option and elected instead to challenge the IME obtained by the employer. When she submitted such a medical evaluation, she was immediately reinstated.
According to the Court’s opinion, the plaintiff suffered
from recurring TIAs. The only accommodation
that she sought was intermittent FMLA leave, requiring her to be hospitalized
whenever she had a TIA episode. After almost
a decade of renewed FMLA requests, the employer placed her on paid administrative
leave pending an Independent Medical Evaluation with a psychologist concerning
repeated aggressive, hostile and unprofessional behavior. The IME concluded that she was not qualified
to perform her current job, would require modified duties and further medical
evaluation. The employer then gave the
plaintiff four\ options: (1) disability leave; (2) FMLA leave, (3) an ADA
accommodation or (4) challenge the IME.
The plaintiff disputed that she was disabled and opted to challenge the
IME. However, she only submitted two
days later a return to work without restrictions statement from her treating
Nurse Practitioner. The employer clarified that she required a
physician analysis of the IME and ceased her paid administrative leave. More than a month later, she submitted a
medical statement disagreeing with the IME and releasing her to return to work
without restrictions. The employer then
immediately reinstated her, but she filed suit at the end of the month,
claiming that she had been discriminated against on account of her disability
by an alleged failure to provide an accommodation or engage in the interactive
process.
The trial and appellate courts had no trouble disposing of
the failure to accommodate claim. First,
she had always denied that she required an accommodation to perform her job
duties and was not entitled to an accommodation in a “regarded as” disability claim. On
the contrary, she produced a release to return to work without
restrictions.
If [her] claim is that [the
employer] “regarded” her as having a disability that she did not have, her
failure-to-accommodate claim is likewise barred. This circuit has held that the
fact that an employee does not have a disability obviates an employer’s
obligation to provide an accommodation. . . . Applying this precedent, if [her] claim is
that [the employer] wrongly perceived or had a mistaken belief that she had a
disability and treated her adversely, [it] could not at the same time have an
obligation to accommodate a disability that she did not have.
Moreover, even if she had an actual disability, any failure
of the interactive process was due to her decision to abandon the interactive
process and challenge the IME instead of seeking further evaluation or
modification of job duties, etc. She had
been given the option of seeking a reasonable accommodation and she had rejected
it.
The Court did not address her loss of paid time off while
challenging the employer’s IME because of the alleged “regarded as” disability
claim.
