Last week, the Sixth Circuit affirmed a law firm employer’s judgment on the pleadings on claims by a former associate lawyer who alleged that his ADHD prevented him from submitting timely and accurate time sheets so that the law firm could bill its clients for his time and services. Longergan v. Gallagher Sharp LLP, No. 25-3808 (6th Cir. May 29, 2026). As a former law firm associate, I of course found this fascinating. The Court agreed that failing to allege any details about proposed accommodations was fatal to his failure to accommodate claim because bare legal assertions that a reasonable accommodation and job modifications had been made were insufficient to state a viable claim. “Plaintiff did not create the plausible inference that he is qualified to perform his job with or without a reasonable accommodation because he did not adequately plead the fact that he proposed any accommodation to Defendant, let alone a reasonable one.” Although he could have moved to amend his complaint to provide details about his proposed job modifications, he failed to do so. Finally, the employer was not required to engage in the interactive process until he proposed a reasonable accommodation, which his complaint failed to sufficiently allege that he had done.
According to the Court’s opinion, the plaintiff suffered
from ADHD and had trouble submitting time sheets. (Law firms bill clients based on the time
sheets submitted by their attorneys and is how the firms pay their employees
and rent, etc.) While the plaintiff alleged in his complaint that he suggested
modifications and accommodations, he did not describe what they were in his
complaint. Instead, he argued that his
suggestions were flatly rejected as unworkable. In later briefing, these suggestions turned
out to be (1) having a legal assistant identify the projects on which he worked
each day so that he could then insert the amount of time spent on each; (2)
assigning him only flat rate projects or (3) giving clients a discount for his
work. After he was put on probation, he
managed to comply for a few weeks, but then realized within two months that he
had failed to submit some weekend hours.
He then became hopeless, “checked out” and was terminated three months
later. He filed a pro se lawsuit that
Fall.
After answering the complaint, the law firm then moved for
judgment on the pleadings on the basis that the plaintiff was not a qualified
individual with a disability because his complaint failed to factually describe any
reasonable accommodations that he had proposed. The plaintiff responded that he only needed
to satisfy notice pleading – that he had generally alleged his proposal of an
unidentified reasonable accommodation and the law firm’s failure to engage in
the interactive process. Although the
plaintiff indicated that he could amend his complaint, he never submitted a
proposed amended complaint to fix the problems with his pleading or a formal
motion. Moreover, the alleged
accommodations he indicated that he had requested failed to satisfy the
requirement that they be reasonable or effective to solve the problems.
While a complaint
need not include “detailed factual
allegations,” but it must contain “more than an unadorned,
the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation[,] . . . a formulaic recitation
of the elements of a cause of action[, or] . . . ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of
‘further factual enhancement.’” . . . .
“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
conclusory statements, do not suffice.” . . . . Although we “‘construe the complaint
in the light most favorable to the plaintiff,’ . . . [m]ere labels and
conclusions are not enough; the allegations must contain ‘factual content that
allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.’” . . . Those “rules . . . exist to keep litigants
from sandbagging their opponents until they are on notice of what their
allegations lack.” . . .
Although a plaintiff bringing an
employment discrimination suit need not establish a prima facie case at the
pleading stage, he still must plead facts showing that he is entitled to
relief. . . . The ADA “prohibits ‘discriminat[ion]
against a qualified individual on the basis of disability’ as it applies to
aspects of employment including hiring, advancement, and firing.” . . . The statute includes in the definition
of disability-based discrimination “not making reasonable accommodations to the
known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified [employee] with
a disability . . . , unless . . . the accommodation would impose an undue
hardship on the operation of the business . . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A).
A qualified employee is one “who can perform the ‘essential functions’ of his
job ‘with or without reasonable accommodation.’” . . . . Thus to state a claim, Plaintiff had
to “plead facts that make plausible the inference that (1) []he is disabled,
(2) []he is qualified to perform [his] job requirements with or without
reasonable accommodation, and (3) []he would not have been discharged but for
the disability . . . With respect to the
second element, Plaintiff would ultimately have to show that he “propose[d] a
reasonable accommodation” to Defendant. . . .
. . . Plaintiff’s complaint failed to
adequately state a failure-to-accommodate claim. Plaintiff did not create the
plausible inference that he is qualified to perform his job with or without a
reasonable accommodation because he did not adequately plead the fact that he
proposed any accommodation to Defendant, let alone a reasonable one. The
complaint merely stated that Plaintiff had requested “a modification to job
requirements” and “repeatedly approached partners at the firm and suggested
accommodations . . . .” . . . . Those
allegations are conclusory recitations of the reasonable accommodation element,
devoid of any factual substance. Plaintiff failed to provide notice to both
Defendant and the district court about what he believes would have constituted
a reasonable accommodation that would have qualified him for the job. They were
left to fill in the blanks. Even accepting all of Plaintiff’s well-pleaded
material allegations as true, the district court did not have a basis to infer
that Defendant could be liable for disability discrimination by failing to
accommodate Plaintiff’s requests. . . . .
Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant
failed to engage in the mandatory interactive process suffers from the same
infirmity. The regulations under the ADA state, in relevant part, that “it may
be necessary for the [employer] to initiate an informal, interactive process”
to “identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and
potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.” . . . . That process is mandatory, id., “[b]ut
an employer’s failure to engage in the interactive process is actionable only
if the employee can demonstrate that she was qualified for the position[,]” . . . Without pleading facts to support that he
proposed any accommodation, Plaintiff failed to plead that he was in fact
qualified, as defined by the statute.
The Court also found that the district court had not abused
its discretion in denying leave to amend the complaint when the plaintiff had 5
months in which to submit a formal motion and failed to do so. Mentioning in a memorandum in opposition that
he could amend his complaint to
address its deficiencies is not a proper motion and need not be considered or
granted by a trial court.
As for the time sheets, all private practice attorneys hate
doing them, but they are not generally required by when working for
corporations, non-profits or government agencies.
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.
