Sixth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of ADA Reasonable Accommodation, Discrimination and Retaliation Claims by Toxic Employee

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 (6^th 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.

HR's Failure to Document Leads to Factual Dispute and Dooms Employer's Summary Judgment on ADA Claims

Last month, the Sixth Circuit reversed an employer’s summary judgment on an ADA disability discrimination claim based on disputed issues of important facts about exactly what the employer did or did not do or say to the employee after she requested an accommodation for her COPD and the paint fumes.  Root v. Decorative Paint, Inc., No. 23-3404 (6^th Cir. 9/3/24).   She claims she was fired, but the employer claimed that management merely sent her home and wanted more information from her physician.  Ultimately, she was fired a few days later for an unexcused absence.  HR’s failure to document its actions or to give the plaintiff a reasonable accommodation form for her physician to complete doomed the employer’s summary judgment chances and required the entire matter to be submitted to a jury.  

According to the Court’s opinion, the plaintiff had worked for the small parts painting company on the Rework line (pulling and sanding blemished parts for repainting) for several years before the pandemic.   She also would fill in sometimes on the A and D lines for a couple of hours here or there.   She occasionally suffered from symptoms of COPD and asthma, but managed them well for several years.  During the pandemic, the company had laid off its employees and called them back in batches, but expecting them to work multiple roles while they slowly increased production.   However, all of the Rework employees remained assigned to their former duties, except for the plaintiff.  She was initially recalled and reassigned only to the D-line, working near heavy paint fumes for her entire 10-hour shift, instead of just a couple of hours as before.

When she experienced difficulty breathing, she called her doctor, explained her symptoms and requested to return to the Rework Department.  He then gave her a note explaining that she could not work around paint fumes, and did not explain or clarify that she could still perform her former Rework duties in the plant.   She gave her note to her supervisor, who gave it to HR.  No one agrees on what happened next.

• ·       HR contended that the entire management team discussed it and decided that the plaintiff should go home and re-visit with her physician what she could and could not do working in a paint plant if she could not be around paint fumes. The production manager, however, disputed that he participated in this conversation.
• ·       There was a meeting with the production manager, HR and the plaintiff where it was explained that her presence was a liability and she was sent home. 

o   The plaintiff testified that she was fired.

o   HR contended that the plaintiff was requested to get clarification from her physician, but did not give her any forms to have completed and did not take any notes.

• ·       HR contended that she called the plaintiff to follow up, but the plaintiff denied this and indicated her cell phone records do not show any such call.

·       When the plaintiff did not return to work after two days, HR backdated forms to indicate that her absences were unexcused and she was fired for attendance.

The trial court found that the plaintiff was not qualified to work in the plant since her physician had indicated that she could not be around paint fumes (which were everywhere in the plant) and had not clarified that she could still work in her former Rework department.   In essence, it was conceded that being able to work around paint fumes was an essential function of every job and her doctor’s note was viewed as a zero tolerance for paint fumes.

The Court agreed with the plaintiff that the employer was required to conduct an individualized assessment of her toleration for paint fumes.  However, there was a disputed issue of fact as to whether it did so.  HR contended that it did so and directed the plaintiff to get clarification and followed up with her a few days later.  The plaintiff contended that she was immediately fired and no one attempted to call her days later to get more information.  Accordingly, it was up to a jury to decide whether the employer attempted to conduct an individualized assessment as required by the ADA.

The Court also agreed that the plaintiff had proposed a reasonable accommodation of being reassigned to the Rework department since she had successfully worked there for 3 years before the pandemic.  Nonetheless, again, there was a disputed issue of fact for a jury to resolve whether the plaintiff had proposed a reasonable accommodation of her reassignment or whether she had requested zero tolerance to paint fumes.  Everyone seemed to agree that she never mentioned the reassignment in the meeting with HR or the production manager.  

The Court also found that there was a disputed issue of fact as to why the plaintiff was fired – her accommodation request or her unexcused absence.  Different burdens of proof would apply depending on whose version the jury believed.  It could be direct evidence of discrimination if the plaintiff were believed and indirect (i.e., the McDonnell-Douglas burden shifting) if the employer’s explanation were believed.  The trial court had not addressed this issue at all because it had found the plaintiff to be unqualified to work in a paint plant.

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.