Andrea Mosby-Meachem v. Memphis Light, Gas & Water Div.
883 F.3d 595
| 6th Cir. | 2018Background
- Andrea Mosby-Meachem, an Attorney 3 at Memphis Light, Gas & Water (MLG&W) since 2005, was placed on doctor-ordered modified bedrest for ~10 weeks during pregnancy and requested to telework from hospital/home.
- Mosby-Meachem submitted medical documentation; an ADA committee denied the request, concluding physical presence was an essential job function and raising confidentiality concerns. She worked remotely from Jan 7–30 while awaiting the denial letter.
- The Attorney 3 job description lists functions such as trying cases, taking depositions, supervising staff; it was based on an older questionnaire and did not reflect some technological or practice changes.
- At trial Mosby-Meachem and multiple coworkers and outside counsel testified she could perform essential duties remotely for the limited 10-week period; she had previously teleworked successfully after neck surgery.
- Jury found for Mosby-Meachem on ADA failure-to-accommodate (compensatory damages $92,000); district court denied MLG&W’s JMOL/new-trial motion and awarded equitable relief (backpay ~$18,184.32). MLG&W appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mosby-Meachem was "otherwise qualified" to perform essential functions with the requested 10-week telework accommodation | Mosby-Meachem argued she could perform essential duties remotely for a limited period; coworkers and outside counsel corroborated ability; prior telework experience supported reasonableness | MLG&W argued regular in-person attendance is an essential function (citing job description and past incumbents) and telework would remove essential tasks like depositions, trials, supervision | Court: Jury reasonably could find she was otherwise qualified for the limited 10-week telework; JMOL denied |
| Whether Ford/Williams precedent required judgment for employer as a matter of law | Mosby-Meachem: Ford and Williams are distinguishable (different facts, indefinite/continuous attendance problems, job tied to a desk/calls) | MLG&W: Sixth Circuit precedent establishes in-person attendance is often essential; those cases foreclose telework claim | Court: Distinguishable—those precedents do not preclude telework in all circumstances; fact-specific inquiry appropriate |
| Whether employer’s offer of leave/short-term disability made telework unnecessary | Mosby-Meachem: Employer failed to engage in the interactive process; offered solution pre-determined and not negotiated | MLG&W: Sick leave/STD were reasonable alternatives to telework | Court: Argument waived (not raised in Rule 50(a)); evidence supported claim employer did not meaningfully engage in interactive process |
| Whether backpay should be reduced because Mosby-Meachem’s law license was administratively suspended during part of the period | Mosby-Meachem: Neither party knew of the suspension; she would have been paid had accommodation been granted; disciplinary issues are for the bar, not to strip backpay | MLG&W: Suspension made her unqualified and bars backpay | Court: Award affirmed; suspension does not defeat backpay under Title VII/ADA remedies; bar discipline is separate |
Key Cases Cited
- Mike’s Train House, Inc. v. Lionel, L.L.C., 472 F.3d 398 (6th Cir. 2006) (JMOL standard and appellate review explain deference to jury verdict)
- Garrison v. Cassens Transp. Co., 334 F.3d 528 (6th Cir. 2003) (view evidence in light most favorable to nonmovant on JMOL)
- EEOC v. Ford Motor Co., 782 F.3d 753 (6th Cir. 2015) (regular in-person attendance can be an essential function, but telework not categorically barred)
- Williams v. AT&T Mobility Servs. LLC, 847 F.3d 384 (6th Cir. 2017) (attendance essential where job required being logged in at workstation to receive calls)
- Rorrer v. City of Stow, 743 F.3d 1025 (6th Cir. 2014) (failure to engage in interactive process can be an independent ADA violation)
- Rasimas v. Michigan Dep’t of Mental Health, 714 F.2d 614 (6th Cir. 1983) (backpay ordinarily awarded where discrimination found; equitable relief principles under Title VII/ADA)