Bare v. Federal Express Corp.
886 F. Supp. 2d 600
N.D. Ohio2012Background
- Bare began as a courier for FedEx in 1991 at the Akron, Ohio station and learned FedEx policies prohibiting discrimination and its leave policies.
- She injured her back and neck on August 2, 2007, receiving a 20-pound lifting restriction that prevented courier work; she later remained on light duty or leave per policy.
- FedEx gave Bare a series of open positions requiring 75-pound lifting and suggested accommodations, but Bare did not request any restructuring or specific accommodations and did not apply for posted jobs.
- Bare attempted a transfer to Custom Critical, but FedEx policy and corporate separation prevented placement there. She was terminated June 2, 2009 after exhausting medical leave and failing to return with restrictions.
- Bare filed a disability discrimination claim under Ohio Rev. Code § 4112.02; the case was removed to federal court on diversity grounds, and later amended motions sought to add/clarify theories of liability.
- The court denied Bare’s motion to amend the complaint and granted FedEx’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing the case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prima facie disability discrimination under 4112.02 | Bare argues disability discrimination occurred upon termination due to impairment. | FedEx contends Bare cannot prove a prima facie case, as she lacked a disability or failed to show a qualified inability to perform with/without reasonable accommodation. | FedEx granted summary judgment on discrimination claim; no prima facie showing. |
| Failure to accommodate under Ohio law | Bare contends FedEx failed to engage in the interactive process and accommodate her lifting restriction. | FedEx asserts no accommodation was requested and no possible open position could accommodate 20 pounds; employer not obligated to create or restructure roles. | FedEx granted summary judgment on failure to accommodate; no viable accommodation existed and no request was made. |
| Motion to amend the complaint | Bare seeks to amend to clarify failure to investigate accommodations at the Akron FedEx Express. | Amendment is untimely, prejudicial, futile, and unnecessary since the theory was previously addressed and the party previously dismissed. | Motion to amend denied; amendment would be futile and prejudicial. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. Supreme Court (1973)) (establishes the three-stage burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (U.S. Supreme Court (1981)) (clarifies burden-shifting and pretext framework)
- Plumbers & Steamfitters Joint Apprenticeship Comm. v. Ohio Civil Rights Comm’n, 66 Ohio St.2d 192, 421 N.E.2d 128 (Ohio Supreme Court (1981)) (applies McDonnell Douglas framework to Ohio 4112.02 claims)
- Hood v. Diamond Prods., 74 Ohio St.3d 298, 658 N.E.2d 738 (Ohio Supreme Court (1996)) (defines disability and major life activities under Ohio law)
- Inge v. Rock Fin. Corp., 281 F.3d 613 (6th Cir.2002) (good-cause and prejudice considerations in Rule 16(b) amendments)
- Burns v. Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc., 222 F.3d 247 (6th Cir.2000) (interactive process and accommodation failure standards)
- Miller v. Premier Indus. Corp., 136 Ohio App.3d 662, 737 N.E.2d 594 (Ohio Ct. App. (2000)) (employer not required to create a position; accommodation must be sought)
- Hoskins v. Oakland Cnty. Sheriff's Dept., 227 F.3d 719 (6th Cir.2000) (employer not required to create a new position as accommodation)
- Cassidy v. Detroit Edison Co., 138 F.3d 629 (6th Cir.1998) (limits on duties of accommodations and essential functions)