Barber v. Chestnut Land Co.
2016 Ohio 2926
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Barber was a salaried store manager (50 hrs/week) for Chestnut Land Co. (Auntie Anne’s) since 1999; she injured her back at work in Sept. 2008 and filed a workers’ compensation claim (lumbar sprain).
- From Jan. 2009 she worked under medical restrictions (initially 5–6 hours/day), received wage continuation for a period, and exhausted FMLA in Oct. 2010. She intermittently sought additional allowances for a herniated disc; one motion was denied and later appeals were pursued.
- Employer engaged the ADA interactive process by sending questionnaires to evaluate disability; Barber’s doctors completed questionnaires but Barber did not ensure they were delivered to the employer.
- After the Industrial Commission denied an allowance on Oct. 21, 2010, employer terminated Barber on Oct. 22, 2010, citing inability to meet the 50‑hour requirement, exhaustion of FMLA, and lack of ADA documentation. Barber later obtained allowance for a different disc condition.
- Barber sued claiming: unlawful retaliation under R.C. 4123.90 (workers’ comp retaliation), disability discrimination under R.C. 4112.02, and failure to reasonably accommodate. Trial court granted summary judgment for employer; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Workers’ compensation retaliation (R.C. 4123.90): causal link between pursuit of WC benefits and termination | Barber: termination occurred day after Industrial Commission loss and employer admitted appeals denial factored into firing → direct/indirect evidence of retaliation | Chestnut: legitimate non‑retaliatory reason — manager must work 50 hrs/week, FMLA exhausted, and restrictions appeared non‑work‑related; employer delayed firing while appeals pending | No retaliation. Court found no direct evidence of retaliatory animus and no admissible proof of pretext; termination for inability to work full schedule (combined with non‑work‑related finding) was legitimate |
| Disability discrimination (R.C. 4112.02) — was Barber disabled? | Barber: L5‑S1 bulge and long‑term 5‑hr/day restriction substantially limited major life activity (working) | Chestnut: medical diagnosis alone insufficient; restriction did not show a substantial limitation in manner/duration for a class/broad range of jobs; employer lacked notice via interactive paperwork | No disability for purposes of summary judgment. Applying pre‑2011 regulatory standard, five‑hour/day restriction did not show the required “significant” limitation; discrimination claim fails |
| Failure to accommodate / interactive process | Barber: 5‑hr/day schedule effectively accommodated her and employer had reason to know; employer’s failure to follow up on missing paperwork and refusal to keep her in manager role or offer other positions shows failure to accommodate | Chestnut: employer attempted to engage under ADA and employer did not cause any breakdown — Barber failed to provide completed medical questionnaires so employer could evaluate accommodations | No failure to accommodate. Court held no disability and that Barber (or her doctors) prevented completion of the interactive process, so employer not liable |
| Standard for summary judgment and burden‑shifting on retaliation/discrimination | Barber: disputes of fact exist (timing, performance reviews, allowances later granted) so summary judgment improper | Chestnut: moving party met burden; Barber failed to produce evidence to create genuine factual disputes on causation, disability, or interactive process | Summary judgment reviewed de novo; court concluded no genuine issues of material fact that would defeat employer’s entitlement to judgment as a matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. Riverside Hosp., 18 Ohio St.3d 8 (Ohio 1985) (statutory retaliation claim pleading and elements discussion)
- Greer-Burger v. Temesi, 116 Ohio St.3d 324 (Ohio 2007) (prima facie retaliation framework adopted from federal law)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden‑shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Texas Dep't of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1981) (employer’s burden to articulate legitimate reason and plaintiff’s burden to show pretext)
- Sutton v. United Air Lines, 527 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1999) (definition of disability and substantial limitation for major life activity of working)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment burdens and non‑movant’s reciprocal burden)
- McGlone v. Columbus Civ. Serv. Comm'n, 82 Ohio St.3d 569 (Ohio 1998) (use of federal ADA interpretations for Ohio law)
- Bickers v. W. & S. Life Ins. Co., 116 Ohio St.3d 351 (Ohio 2007) (limitations on R.C. 4123.90 and employer’s ability to terminate injured employees)
- Allen v. totes/Isotoner Corp., 123 Ohio St.3d 216 (Ohio 2009) (employer’s nondiscriminatory reason may be unrelated to physical condition requiring particular work breaks)