Anderson v. Ohio Bell Tel. Co.
2017 Ohio 7318
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Anderson worked for Ohio Bell from 2005; she took short-term disability leave in August 2009 and was terminated in November 2009 after failing to return to work.
- Sedgwick (IDSC), a third‑party administrator, approved short‑term disability through September 14, 2009 but denied continuation because it had not received medical documentation supporting inability to work.
- Ohio Bell sent multiple letters warning that failure to return would be treated as job abandonment; Anderson did not return and was fired November 5, 2009; Ohio Bell later alleged she submitted a fraudulent psychiatrist’s letter and filed (then dismissed) a fraud counterclaim.
- Medical records show Anderson complained of severe bilateral wrist/hand pain, saw multiple providers (primary care, hand surgeon, Cleveland Clinic orthopedist) who could not definitively diagnose her condition and did not place her on work restrictions; she later saw a psychiatrist after termination.
- Anderson testified the pain caused depression, inability to sleep or care for her child, and that she requested an extension as a reasonable accommodation; Ohio Bell relied on Sedgwick’s determination and lack of contemporaneous medical documentation to deny continued leave.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Anderson "disabled" under Ohio law/ADA for purposes of her discrimination and accommodation claims? | Anderson argued her medical records and testimony (severe pain, depression, functional limitations) created a genuine issue of fact that she was substantially limited in major life activities. | Ohio Bell argued no medical evidence showed a disability at the relevant time; she lacked a definitive diagnosis and misrepresented surgery scheduling. | Court held genuine issue of material fact existed as to disability — summary judgment improperly granted for Ohio Bell. |
| Did Ohio Bell unlawfully fail to provide reasonable accommodation / discriminate based on disability? | Anderson argued she requested a time‑extension accommodation and pursued medical documentation; employer had reason to know of disability. | Ohio Bell argued it relied on Sedgwick’s denial, lacked notice of a request for accommodation, and viewed her non‑return as abandonment. | Because a factual dispute exists about disability and notice/accommodation, summary judgment for Ohio Bell on these claims was reversed and the case remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bonacorsi v. Wheeling & Lake Erie Ry. Co., 95 Ohio St.3d 314 (Ohio 2002) (standard of appellate review for summary judgment)
- Little Forest Medical Center v. Ohio Civil Rights Commission, 61 Ohio St.3d 607 (Ohio 1991) (federal Title VII analysis applies to Ohio anti‑discrimination law)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (Supreme Court) (framework for burden‑shifting in employment discrimination cases)
- Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (Supreme Court) (employer’s burden to articulate legitimate nondiscriminatory reason)
- Rosebrough v. Buckeye Valley High School, 690 F.3d 427 (6th Cir.) (elements of prima facie disability discharge claim)
- Plant v. Morton International, Inc., 212 F.3d 929 (6th Cir.) (use in defining prima facie elements)
- Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Rehabilitation & Correction, 23 N.E.3d 162 (Ohio 2014) (Ohio courts may look to ADA definitions and regulations for disability analysis)