603 F. App'x 405
6th Cir.2015Background
- Bryan Mobley, with documented cognitive and neurological impairments (stroke, brain surgeries, seizure disorder, memory/comprehension deficits), worked at Miami Valley Hospital (MVH) as an Environmental Technician primarily assigned to clean operating rooms (the “surgery position”) from 2008–early 2012.
- In February 2012 MVH reassigned him to a patient-trash removal role on two floors; other employees performed that role without issue, but Mobley completed only about a quarter of the assigned rooms per shift.
- Mobley submitted physician notes and a grievance requesting reassignment back to the surgery position; MVH placed him on a developmental plan, provided a short coworker observation/training period, and ultimately terminated him on March 8, 2012 for poor performance.
- Mobley sued under the ADA (and parallel Ohio law), alleging discriminatory reassignment/demotion, failure to accommodate, and failure to engage in the interactive process.
- The district court granted summary judgment to MVH on all claims; the Sixth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the demotion claim but reversed and remanded the failure-to-accommodate and interactive-process claims for trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reassignment to patient-trash role was an adverse employment action (constructive demotion) | Mobley: transfer was more arduous, less prestigious, and effectively a demotion | MVH: no change in title, pay, benefits, or hours; other employees performed role fine; not objectively intolerable | Affirmed for MVH — transfer alone not materially adverse; summary judgment proper on demotion claim |
| Whether MVH failed to provide a reasonable accommodation (reassignment back to surgery) | Mobley: physician notes and grievance requested reassignment; he had previously performed surgery duties successfully and thus is qualified with accommodation | MVH: either he cannot perform essential functions of any role; or interpersonal/personality issues disqualify him; also argued request not sufficiently linked to disability | Reversed for Mobley — genuine disputes of fact exist on disability, qualified status, notice, and whether reassignment was a reasonable accommodation; summary judgment improper |
| Whether MVH failed to engage in the ADA’s interactive process in good faith | Mobley: MVH rejected reassignment request without meaningful dialogue and offered only limited measures (development plan, brief coworker observation) | MVH: made some efforts (development plan, observer/trainer) and may have engaged in process | Reversed for Mobley — reasonable jury could find MVH did not engage in good faith; further dialogue might have produced accommodation |
| Whether plaintiff put employer on notice that reassignment request was disability-related | Mobley: provided doctor’s notes and wife’s email detailing medical history; testified managers knew his conditions | MVH: argued request was preference-based and not sufficiently linked to medical need | Rejected for MVH — physician notes and communications were sufficient to raise genuine dispute that MVH had notice |
Key Cases Cited
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (Sup. Ct.) (definition of materially adverse action for retaliation/hostile work environment analysis)
- White v. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 364 F.3d 789 (6th Cir.) (objective intolerability standard for reassignment/adverse action)
- Burns v. Coca-Cola Enters., Inc., 222 F.3d 247 (6th Cir.) (reassignment to vacant position can be reasonable accommodation)
- Kiphart v. Saturn Corp., 251 F.3d 573 (6th Cir.) (practical work realities can inform whether a function is essential)
- Cehrs v. Ne. Ohio Alzheimer’s Research Ctr., 155 F.3d 775 (6th Cir.) (physician statements can put employer on notice of need for accommodation)