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 (6th 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.
