Sixth Circuit Rejects Pregnancy and FMLA Claims and Cat's Paw Theory and Evidence of Alleged Pattern and Practice Discrimination to Show Pretext Despite Temporal Proximity Evidence

Last week, the Sixth Circuit affirmed an employer’s summary judgment on claims of pregnancy discrimination and FMLA interference and retaliation after the plaintiff had been fired in a RIF just 10 days after she disclosed her pregnancy to her new supervisor and a couple of HR employees.  Johnson v. Evolent Health, LLC., No. 22-5574 (6^th Cir. 3/2/23).  The Court agreed that there was no evidence showing that anyone who had been involved in the RIF and decision to terminate her employment knew that she was pregnant.  While temporal proximity is often enough to show causation, “the individuals who decided to terminate [the plaintiff] must still have ‘had actual knowledge of her pregnancy at the time that the adverse employment action was taken’ for a nexus to exist.  “Because [the plaintiff] failed to show that any individual who participated in the RIF process knew she was pregnant at the time of her termination, and because she cannot show that any employee who was aware of her pregnancy showed any animus towards her or influenced the decisions of decision makers [under a cat’s paw theory], she has not established a prima facie case of pregnancy discrimination.” The Court also rejected evidence of alleged pattern and practice discrimination to show pretext because it does not evaluate individual employment decisions.   The Court rejected her FMLA claims on the same grounds.

According to the Court’s opinion, the plaintiff was hired in 2018 and had received only “below expectations” on her first two annual performance evaluations and was about to be placed on a Performance Improvement Plan.  Instead, the company decided to eliminate her department and offered her a transfer to a new team, which she accepted, sometime in 2020.  Her new supervisor reached out to her on February 10, 2020 to let her know that the reorganization would take place in a few weeks.  Meanwhile, on February 5, the Company identified the plaintiff and 67 other employees with poor performance evaluations for a reduction in force.  After analyzing which employees would have the least impact, 33 of them (including the plaintiff) were selected for the RIF on or about February 20.  All of these discussions were held among individuals who did not supervisor or manage the plaintiff.  Rather, her former supervisor was not informed until February 20 and was instructed that he would be the person to inform plaintiff since the reorganization had not yet been completed.  However, a few days earlier – on February 14 – the plaintiff had requested two days off from her new supervisor for doctor’s appointments because she had discovered that she was pregnant with twins.  The supervisor directed the plaintiff to contact Human Resources, but did not tell anyone else about the pregnancy.   The plaintiff then contacted the benefits department, which asked a few questions and put her on a tracking spreadsheet for pregnant employees.  On February 24, different Human Resources employees informed the plaintiff that her role was being eliminated and her employment terminated.  She protested that she had just been transferred and explained that she was pregnant.   No one else performing her duties was hired until the following year.  The plaintiff then filed suit for pregnancy discrimination and FMLA interference and retaliation.

The Court closely examined who had been involved in the RIF and termination decision (which had been finalized on February 21) and who had been informed of the plaintiff’s pregnancy on February 14.  It agreed that there was no evidence that anyone involved in the RIF decisions had been informed of the plaintiff’s pregnancy.  Rather, the plaintiff had only informed three people and none of those people share that information with anyone else, let alone anyone who was involved in the RIF decisions. 

Temporal proximity between the announcement of an employee’s pregnancy and that employee’s termination can sufficiently establish a nexus between the events. . . . . Even so, the individuals who decided to terminate [the plaintiff] must still have “had actual knowledge of her pregnancy at the time that the adverse employment action was taken” for a nexus to exist.

The Court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that other HR employees had access to the shared email box or tracking spreadsheet because they denied ever reviewing the information or learning about her pregnancy before her lawsuit.   The plaintiff could only speculate that other HR employees had actual knowledge and no actual evidence.

The Court also rejected the cat’s paw theory because she did not allege – let alone prove – that the individuals with knowledge of her pregnancy had any discriminatory animus whicvh they then used to influence others into taking discriminatory actions.

“In the employment discrimination context, ‘cat’s paw’ refers to a situation in which a biased subordinate, who lacks decisionmaking power, uses the formal decisionmaker as a dupe in a deliberate scheme to trigger a discriminatory employment action.” . . . . But the “predicate to cat’s paw” is a demonstration of discriminatory animus: that “by relying on this discriminatory information flow, the ultimate decisionmakers ‘acted as the conduit of the supervisor's prejudice––his cat's paw.’”  . . . [The plaintiff] does not allege that any subordinate employee, aware of her pregnancy or not, showed any discriminatory animus towards [her].

In any event, the plaintiff also could not show that the employer’s explanation for her termination was pretext for discrimination.   The plaintiff attempted to challenge the termination decision – based on her documented poor performance – because ultimately only half of the employee initially selected on February 6 were actually terminated and no extra supporting comments were offered to support her termination.  However, it was undisputed that she had poor performance scores and she was not the only terminated employee without extra supporting comments. 

The Court also rejected her argument that the employer’s explanation had shifted from position elimination to poor performance.  However, the Court did not find it inconsistent to find that her position had been selected for elimination based on her poor performance.   While the termination script never mentioned her poor performance, it never gave any explanation for how or why she had been selected for termination.

The Court also rejected the plaintiff’s argument that pretext was shown because approximately 10% of pregnant employees were terminated by the Company.

pattern or practice evidence is unavailable to assess an individual plaintiff’s discrimination claim.  . . . Pattern-or-practice evidence is generally “inappropriate as a vehicle for proving discrimination in an individual case” because it does not evaluate individual hiring decisions. . . . It can support, however, an “otherwise-viable individual claim for disparate treatment under the McDonnell Douglas framework,” although a plaintiff must still satisfy the McDonnell Douglas framework to prevail. Id. [The plaintiff] is unable to separately satisfy the McDonnell Douglas framework. Thus, this evidence does not raise a triable issue of fact nor does it allow [her] claims to survive summary judgment.

Similarly, the Court again rejected the temporal proximity of her pregnancy announcement and the termination decision as evidence of pretext:

The temporal proximity of [her] disclosure of her pregnancy and her termination may be indirect evidence of pretext but cannot alone support pretext here. . . . . Even when the timing appears “suspect,” it “must be accompanied by other, independent evidence of pretext for [the plaintiff] to succeed.”

The Court likewise rejected her FMLA arguments because she could not show pretext for the employer’s decision for the reasons discussed above and because at least one other employee had been terminated without requesting FMLA leave.

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.

NLRB Prohibits Broad Confidentiality Clauses in Severance Agreements

On Tuesday, the National Labor Relations Board held that a hospital employer violated the NLRA in 2020 by offering laid off non-supervisory employees a separation agreement which, among other things, prohibited them from disparaging or making statements that harm the reputation of the employer.  McLaren Macomb, Case 07–CA– 263041 (2-21-23).  The Board is returning to a legal standard where “unlawful provisions in a severance agreement proffered to employees have a reasonable tendency to interfere with, restrain, or coerce the exercise of employee rights under Section 7 of the Act.”  More broadly, “an employer violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act when it proffers a severance agreement with provisions that would restrict employees’ exercise of their NLRA rights.”  The Board expanded its analysis by including within this prohibition clauses which require employees to keep confidential the terms of the separation agreement where the only exceptions were for tax advisors, attorneys, spouses and when compelled by law.  “A severance agreement is unlawful if it precludes an employee from assisting coworkers with workplace issues concerning their employer, and from communicating with others, including a union, and the Board, about his employment.”  This is not a case where the confidentiality clause also carved out statutory rights, such as reporting to or cooperating with government agencies. 

According to the Board’s opinion, the employer temporarily laid off 11 non-supervisory/management  employees when the government restricted medical services during the COVID pandemic.  Without first informing or negotiating with the union, the employer later made those layoffs permanent and offered severance agreements which provided severance pay in return for a release of claims, etc. and promises to not disparage the hospital and to keep confidential the terms of the agreements:

6.  Confidentiality Agreement. The Employee acknowledges that the terms of this Agreement are confidential and agrees not to disclose them to any third person, other than spouse, or as necessary to professional advisors for the purposes of obtaining legal counsel or tax advice, or unless legally compelled to do so by a court or administrative agency of competent jurisdiction.

7. Non-Disclosure. At all times hereafter, the Employee promises and agrees not to disclose information, knowledge or materials of a confidential, privileged, or proprietary nature of which the Employee has or had knowledge of, or involvement with, by reason of the Employee’s employment. At all times hereafter, the Employee agrees not to make statements to Employer’s employees or to the general public which could disparage or harm the image of Employer, its parent and affiliated entities and their officers, directors, employees, agents and representatives.

The Agreements also made the employees liable for injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees and damages if they violated the provisions.  The Board had no difficulty finding the employer violated the NLRA by failing to first inform or negotiate with the union about the layoffs and severance agreements.  However, the Board also found that the agreements themselves violated the NLRA.

Relying almost exclusively on prior Board precedent that employees may not waive their Section 7 rights and cases which addressed whether employers could interfere with employees’ rights to report allegations to the Board or to assist other employees in asserting their Section 7 rights, then Board then asserts that the confidentiality provision would prevent employees from reporting the employer’s alleged misconduct to the NLRB:

The provision broadly prohibits the subject employee from disclosing the terms of the agreement “to any third person.” . . . The employee is thus precluded from disclosing even the existence of an unlawful provision contained in the agreement. This proscription would reasonably tend to coerce the employee from filing an unfair labor practice charge or assisting a Board investigation into the Respondent’s use of the severance agreement, including the nondisparagement provision. Such a broad surrender of Section 7 rights contravenes established public policy that all persons with knowledge of unfair labor practices should be free from coercion in cooperating with the Board.  The confidentiality provision has an impermissible chilling tendency on the Section 7 rights of all employees because it bars the subject employee from providing information to the Board concerning the Respondent’s unlawful interference with other employees’ statutory rights.

                . . .

The confidentiality provision would also prohibit the subject employee from discussing the terms of the severance agreement with his former coworkers who could find themselves in a similar predicament facing the decision whether to accept a severance agreement. In this manner, the confidentiality provision impairs the rights of the subject employee’s former coworkers to call upon him for support in comparable circumstances. Additionally encompassed by the confidentiality provision is discussion with the Union concerning the terms of the agreement, or such discussion with a union representing employees where the subject employee may gain subsequent employment, or alternatively seek to participate in organizing, or discussion with future co-workers.  A severance agreement is unlawful if it precludes an employee from assisting coworkers with workplace issues concerning their employer, and from communicating with others, including a union, and the Board, about his employment. Id. Conditioning the benefits under a severance agreement on the forfeiture of statutory rights plainly has a reasonable tendency to interfere with, restrain, or coerce the exercise of those rights. unless it is narrowly tailored to respect the range of those rights. (bolding added for emphasis).

There is no discussion in the case whether the agreements also provided that the confidentiality provision would not apply to prevent the employee from reporting or cooperating with any law enforcement or government agency, including, for instance, the NLRA or EEOC or SEC, etc.  Rather, the Board notes that: “The only exceptions are disclosure to spouse, for obtaining legal counsel or tax advice, or if compelled to do so by a court or administrative agency.”

Section 7 rights are not limited to discussions with coworkers, as they do not depend on the existence of an employment relationship between the employee and the employer, and the Board has repeatedly affirmed that such rights extend to former employees. It is further long-established that Section 7 protections extend to employee efforts to improve terms and conditions of employment or otherwise improve their lot as employees through channels outside the immediate employee - employer relationship . . . These channels include administrative, judicial, legislative, and political forums,  newspapers, the media, social media, and communications to the public that are part of and related to an ongoing labor dispute. Accordingly, Section 7 affords protection for employees who engage in communications with a wide range of third parties in circumstances where the communication is related to an ongoing labor dispute and when the communication is not so disloyal, reckless, or maliciously untrue to lose the Act's protection.

                 . . .

             . . . Where an agreement unlawfully conditions receipt of severance benefits on the forfeiture of statutory rights, the mere proffer of the agreement itself violates the Act, because it has a reasonable tendency to interfere with or restrain the prospective exercise of Section 7 rights, both by the separating employee and those who remain employed. Whether the employee accepts the agreement is immaterial. . . .

The nondisparagement provision on its face substantially interferes with employees’ Section 7 rights. Public statements by employees about the workplace are central to the exercise of employee rights under the Act. Yet the broad provision at issue here prohibits the employee from making any “statements to [the] Employer’s employees or to the general public which could disparage or harm the image of [the] Employer”—including, it would seem, any statement asserting that the Respondent had violated the Act (as by, for example, proffering a settlement agreement with unlawful provisions). This far-reaching proscription—which is not even limited to matters regarding past employment with the Respondent . . .

The Board also ordered the employer to “compensate the employees for any other direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms incurred as a result of the unlawful furloughs, including reasonable search-for-work and interim employment expenses, if any, regard[1]less of whether these expenses exceed interim earnings. Compensation for these harms shall be calculated separately from taxable net backpay . . .”

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.

Supreme Court Rejects FLSA Exemption for Highly Compensated Employee Paid Based on Day Rate Instead of Weekly or Annual Salary

This morning, a divided (6-3) Supreme Court vacated an employer’s summary judgment on an FLSA overtime compensation claim brought by a Highly Compensated Employee because the employee’s daily pay rate did not satisfy the salary basis test for the highly paid executive “white collar” exemption in the FLSA regulations.  Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. v. Hewitt, No. 21-984 (U.S. 2-22-23).  The Court rejected the employer’s FLSA exemption argument even though the employee was always paid more than $455/week in which he performed any work, was paid more than $200K/year and typically worked 84 hours/week on an oil rig.   The Court held that even though his daily rate was far in excess of $455 and he was highly compensated, the employee was not paid on a salary basis and, therefore was not entitled to the FLSA overtime pay exemption, where he was paid based on the number of days he worked.   In short, the salary basis test applies to both highly compensated and lower income employees. 

According to the Court’s opinion, the plaintiff supervised various aspects of the operations of an oil rig and supervised more than 11 workers. He typically, but not invariably, worked 12 hours a day, seven days a week—so 84 hours a week—during a 28-day “hitch.” He then had 28 days off before reporting back to the vessel.  He was paid every two weeks based on a day rate of over $950/day.  After the plaintiff employee sued for overtime compensation, the District Court granted the employer summary judgment on the grounds that the plaintiff was a Highly Compensated Executive exempt from the FLSA’s overtime compensation requirements.   The en banc Fifth Circuit reversed on the grounds that he was not paid on a salary basis when his compensation was based on a day rate.

The salary basis test has been part of the FLSA white collar exemptions since the 1940’s.   “The basic idea is that . . . an employee can be a bona fide executive only if he receives a “predetermined and fixed salary”—one that does not vary with the precise amount of time he works.”  The other two parts of the test involve a duties analysis and whether the salary exceeds a certain threshold (i.e., over $455/week).   In 2015, the DOL relaxed the duties test for Highly Compensated Employees (who are paid more than $100K/year), but retained the salary basis test and salary threshold.  The salary basis test described in the FLSA regulations at 29 C.F.R. §541.602(a) provides in relevant part that:

An employee will be considered to be paid on a ‘salary basis’ . . . if the employee regularly receives each pay period on a weekly, or less frequent basis, a predetermined amount constituting all or part of the employee’s compensation, which amount is not subject to reduction because of variations in the quality or quantity of the work performed. Subject to [certain exceptions], an exempt employee must receive the full salary for any week in which the employee performs any work without regard to the number of days or hours worked . . .

 . . . .

Another provision, §541.604(b), focuses on workers whose compensation is “computed on an hourly, a daily or a shift basis,” rather than a weekly or less frequent one. That section states that an employer may base an employee’s pay on an hourly, daily, or shift rate without “violating the salary basis requirement” or “losing the [bona fide executive] exemption” so long as two conditions are met. First, the employer must “also” guarantee the employee at least $455 each week (the minimum salary level) “regardless of the number of hours, days or shifts worked.” Ibid. And second, that promised amount must bear a “reasonable relationship” to the “amount actually earned” in a typical week— more specifically, must be “roughly equivalent to the employee’s usual earnings at the assigned hourly, daily or shift rate for the employee’s normal scheduled workweek.” Ibid. Those conditions create a compensation system functioning much like a true salary—a steady stream of pay, which the employer cannot much vary and the employee may thus rely on week after week. See 69 Fed. Reg. 22184 (explaining that §604(b)’s conditions ensure that daily or hourly pay is “[]consistent with the salary basis concept”).

The Court concluded that paying an employee based on a daily rate does not satisfy the salary basis test which requires a rate based on at least one week:

That section applies solely to employees paid by the week (or longer); it is not met when an employer pays an employee by the day, as [the employer] paid [the plaintiff]. Daily-rate workers, of whatever income level, are paid on a salary basis only through the test set out in §604(b) (which, again, [the employer’s] payment scheme did not satisfy).

The employer had argued that it met the salary basis test for HCE employees because the plaintiff always received more than $455/each week whenever he performed work (because his minimum day rate was far in excess of $455/week). 

[A] “basis” of payment typically refers to the unit or method for calculating pay, not the frequency of its distribution. Most simply put, an employee paid on an hourly basis is paid by the hour, an employee paid on a daily basis is paid by the day, and an employee paid on a weekly basis is paid by the week—irrespective of when or how often his employer actually doles out the money. The inclusion of the word “receives” in §602(a) does not change that usual meaning.

                . . .

a worker can be paid on a salary basis even if he additionally gets non-salary compensation, like a bonus. But the employee still must be paid a salary. And [the plaintiff] was not. He received a high day rate (higher than lots of salaries); but he did not get a salary (of $963 or any other amount) because his weekly take-home pay could be as little as $963 or as much as $13,482, depending on how many days he worked.

The Court also rejected the employer’s argument that the daily rate permitted for exempt employees under §641.602 did not apply to HCE.

For §602(a) cannot change meanings depending on whether it applies to the general rule or the HCE rule. It applies to both, and must mean the same thing in either context. So even supposing that the HCE rule incorporates only §602(a), and not §604(b), the two provisions still must be read to complement each other.

             . . . The HCE rule refers to the salary-basis (and salary-level) requirement in the same way that the general rule does.

The Court also rejected the argument that its holding would result in a “windfall” for highly compensated employees and grave liability for employers.

It is in fact [the employer’s] position that would create disturbing consequences, by depriving even workers at the heartland of the FLSA’s protection—those paid less than $100,000 annually—of overtime pay. The problem arises because, as explained above, §602(a) applies not only to the HCE rule but also to the general rule, exempting lower-earning employees as bona fide executives. See supra, at 3–4, 14. And §602(a) must mean the same thing as applied to both rules; not even [the employer] argues otherwise. So on [its] view, any daily-rate employee who meets the general rule’s three-part duties test; gets a paycheck no more frequently than every week; and receives at least $455 per week (about $24,000 per year) is excluded from the FLSA’s overtime protections. . . . Some nurses working on a per-day or per-shift basis are likely to meet the general rule’s duties test; and their employers would assure them $455 per week in a heartbeat if doing so eliminated the need to pay overtime. And nurses, in the Government’s view, are not alone: They “are just one of the many examples” of workers paid less than $100,000 a year who would, if Helix prevailed, lose their entitlement to overtime compensation.

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.

Sixth Circuit Rejects ADA Claim Based on Self-Diagnosis and Belated Request to Transfer to Avoid Supervisor Even Though Employee Later Discovered Brain Tumor

A unanimous Sixth Circuit yesterday affirmed an employer’s summary judgment on claims brought by an employee terminated for repeated poor attendance which she later blamed on persistent depression and a brain tumor that were not discovered or diagnosed until after her termination.   Hrdlicka v. General Motors LLC, No. 22-1328 (6^th Cir. 2/7/23), reissued (6th Cir. 3-23-23).  The Court found that her time off requests were not specific enough to prevail on disability discrimination, failure to accommodate or denial of FMLA claims and the employer was justified in acting based on the information that it had at the time and was apparently not required to inquire further.   Merely mentioning possible depression is insufficient to put an employer on notice of the ADA because depression is not always a disability and the employer reasonably attributed the issues to a personality conflict.  The Court also found that the employer was not required to engage in the interactive process when her unreasonable request to transfer was plausibly based on her dislike of her job, co-worker and supervisor rather than self-diagnosed depression.   It also found her request to transfer was too little too late when it came after her Final Written Warning, after she had been late two more times and two days before she was ultimately fired.

According to the Court’s opinion, the plaintiff had worked for GM for over 30 years when she was terminated for excessive absenteeism.  She had previously taken a few medical and other leaves of absence, showing that she knew how to request such leaves.   She was transferred to a new department in May 2018, but did not like a co-worker, her new supervisor or the work environment.   She requested by August to be returned to her former department, but her position had been eliminated, she was not qualified for any other positions and someone would have to backfill her current position.   Within a year, she began frequently missing, and being hours late for, work.  She gave a variety of reasons for her attendance, when she explained it at all, including child care issues, traffic, not feeling well, headache, bad cough, family situations, being tired, etc.  The only time she mentioned going to see a doctor was a fabrication.  Her attendance was criticized in her June 2019 performance evaluation and, finally, she was given a final written warning on August 14, 2019 after she had missed the summer intern presentations over which she had primary responsibility.  She was encouraged to utilize a medical leave of absence or seek a reasonable accommodation if necessary and provided with information to contact the EAP.  She was late the next two days and then on August 19 requested against to transfer back to her former department.  To support this request, she mentioned that she was unhappy with her work environment and supervisor and it was disputed whether she also mentioned that she had been suffering from [self-diagnosed] depression.  She was late again the next day and her employment was terminated.    

She immediately appealed her termination and claimed that she had informed HR before her termination that she suffered from depression caused by her supervisor.   In October, she was diagnosed with persistent depressive disorder.  A brain tumor was discovered in November and removed.  The employer was so informed.   Her appeal – which was limited to facts which existed at the time the August termination decision was made – was denied because there was no evidence submitted prior to her termination to substantiate her depression.  She then filed suit, alleging violations of the ADA, FMLA, state law, ERISA,  and Title VII.  The employer was granted summary judgment on all claims and the Court of Appeals affirmed. 

The Court agreed that she could not prevail on a disability discrimination or failure to accommodate claim based on an impairment which was not even diagnosed until after her termination, particularly when she never sought medical help until after she had been fired.  The Court was not influenced by her self-diagnoses:

Although an employee is not required to use the word “disabled” to put his or her employer on notice, the employer still must “know enough information about the employee’s condition to conclude that he is disabled. Relevant information could include, among other things, a diagnosis, a treatment plan, apparent severe symptoms, and physician-imposed work restrictions.”  . . . “The employer is not required to speculate as to the extent of the employee’s disability or the employee’s need or desire for an accommodation.”

[Plaintiff’s] text messages required [her supervisor] to speculate as to the existence of a disability. Many of the text messages reference only generalized ailments, such as [her] “head . . . really hurting,” having a “fever and other symptoms,” or simply being “sick.” Such symptoms are consistent with many short-term, nondisabling ailments, including a common cold. Other text messages make even more general references to “having a tough time” or dealing with “a mental thing.” Although these messages might have given [the supervisor] a general awareness of a health issue, that is not enough. . . . .. At bottom, these text messages were not sufficient to apprise [the supervisor] of a disability, especially when [the plaintiff] herself was unaware of any disability.

The closer question is whether [the plaintiff] put General Motors on notice of a disability when she met with [HR] shortly before she was terminated. In that meeting, [she] told them that she had felt depressed since transitioning to the Design Academy. In explaining her tardiness, however, [she] stated that “it was all related to [her] current work environment created by [her supervisor,] . . . includ[ing] a lack of leadership, direction, a lack of trust within the group, favoritism,” etc. . . .

In sum, [the plaintiff] made only a single, unsubstantiated statement that she was depressed without any corroborating medical evidence and without ever having sought medical help, and she consistently presented the issue as a workplace conflict, not a disability. Although a diagnosis is not necessary for an ADA claim to succeed,  . . .  [she] failed to present any of the “[r]elevant information” that this court has found pertinent to determining if an employer was placed on notice of a disability. . . .

The mention of depression alone is insufficient to constitute a “severe symptom” for two reasons. First, depression does not always render an employee “disabled.” . . . Second, [she] consistently and specifically attributed both her attendance issues and depression to a dislike of [her supervisor] and the work environment, leaving General Motors to “speculate” as to the existence of a disability as opposed to [her] concern about her interpersonal work conflict.

The Court also concluded that even if she suffered from a disability, the employer had a legitimate reason to terminate her for her repeated poor attendance and prior warnings: “The chronic tardiness and repeated absences, coupled with [her] immediate failure to abide by her Attendance Letter, were clearly legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons to terminate her.”

The Court also rejected her failure to accommodate claim based on her request to transfer back to her former department days after her Final Written Warning and two days before she was terminated (after she had again been late to work without a valid medical excuse).   She had never linked this request with any purported disability.  Unlike the Sixth Circuit panel just days earlier, it found her request to transfer to avoid her supervisor was unreasonable:

Based on the facts in the record, however, this request was not “reasonable.” A transfer request is not reasonable if it was made to avoid working with certain people. . . . . A court is not in a position to “act as a super-bureau of Human Resources” and determine who should work with whom.

[She] herself conceded during her deposition that, when meeting with [HR], she “complained about [her co-worker] and [her supervisor’s] lack of leadership at this meeting” and that her tardiness was “related to [her] current work environment created by [her supervisor].” In other words, she attributed her attendance issues to the work environment and to her supervisor. She explicitly noted that her depression began once she was transferred to the Design Academy, and that this “precipitated her request for a transfer back to Sculpting.”

These facts compel the conclusion that her transfer request was specifically linked to her distaste for her current work environment. Basically, it was a desire to “force [the defendant] to transfer [her] so that [she] will not be required to work with certain people.” . . .

Even assuming that [she] adequately attributed her request to a disability and not just to a desire to escape the Design Academy, her request was untimely. “When an employee requests an accommodation for the first time only after it becomes clear that an adverse employment action is imminent, such a request can be ‘too little, too late.’” . . .

Similarly, [her] request came after a long history of attendance issues and a warning that her “job was in jeopardy” if she did not improve. After [she] arrived late for three successive days immediately following the issuance of her Attendance Letter, she was terminated. Her last-minute request for a transfer back to the Sculpting Department was not reasonable under the circumstances.

The Court also rejected her argument that her employer failed to engage in the interactive process:

General Motors did not violate a duty to engage in an interactive process because the duty is an independent violation of the ADA only “if the plaintiff establishes a prima facie showing that he proposed a reasonable accommodation.” Id. at 1041. As discussed above, [she] did not request a reasonable accommodation and, therefore, General Motors did not fail to engage in an interactive process.

The Court also rejected her FMLA claim on the ground that she failed to provide sufficient notice of the need for such leave.  Her “general references to her head “really hurting,” feeling “sick,” or having a “fever and other symptoms” are simply generalized descriptions of ailments that do not rise to the level of “serious health conditions” within the meaning of the FMLA.”

The better argument is when [she] more explicitly referenced having “depression” in her meeting with [HR] shortly before she was terminated. But this conversation was not accompanied by any request for FMLA leave despite the fact that [she] was familiar with the process because she herself had already taken FMLA and maternity leave when she had had her two children. Moreover, the possibility of taking FMLA leave was directly stated in her Attendance Letter, which was both read and emailed to [her].

                 . . .

             . . . In sum, [she] made only a single statement that she was depressed, which was not made in the context of requesting time off, but as a justification for her desire to transfer back to the sculpting Department (and to continue working, not stop working as FMLA leave would entail).

The remaining claims were denied based on the employer’s legitimate and non-discriminatory reason to terminate her on account of her poor attendance, after several warnings, based on the information that the employer had at the time of the decision. 

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.

Ohio Excludes Workers Compensation Coverage from Most Injuries While Working From Home

 In the better late than never category, the General Assembly amended the workers compensation statute, Ohio Revised Code §4123.01(C), to specifically exclude injuries suffered by employees who are working from home unless three factors are met, including a “special hazard.”   Effective, September 22, 2022, the new language from House Bill 447 provides in relevant part that:

(C) "Injury" includes any injury, whether caused by external accidental means or accidental in character and result, received in the course of, and arising out of, the injured employee's employment. "Injury" does not include:

 . . .

(4) Injury or disability sustained by an employee who performs the employee's duties in a work area that is located within the employee's home and that is separate and distinct from the location of the employer, unless all of the following apply:

(a) The employee's injury or disability arises out of the employee's employment.

(b) The employee's injury or disability was caused by a special hazard of the employee's employment activity.

(c) The employee's injury or disability is sustained in the course of an activity undertaken by the employee for the exclusive benefit of the employer.

(emphasis added).