985 F.3d 509
6th Cir.2021Background
- Plaintiff Cassandra Thompson, a 52-year-old African‑American with arthritis (previously approved for SSD), was hired as a production worker at Fresh Products in July 2016 and worked eight‑hour shifts without accommodations.
- Fresh Products changed from three eight‑hour shifts to two ten‑hour shifts and surveyed employees about availability; Thompson indicated she could not work the new schedule and later asked for part‑time hours.
- Management conducted a reduction‑in‑force (RIF) and laid Thompson off on January 27, 2017; five employees were laid off in the RIF.
- Thompson filed a charge with OCRC/EEOC on February 1, 2017, received a right‑to‑sue letter, and sued in May 2018 alleging disability (ADA & Ohio law), age (ADEA), and race (Title VII & Ohio law) discrimination and failure to accommodate.
- Thompson had signed a handbook acknowledgment agreeing to a six‑month contractual limitations period for employment claims; district court granted summary judgment for employer.
- Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment: held federal claims timely (Logan reasoning applied to ADA/ADEA), Ohio claims time‑barred by the contract, and no genuine dispute proving discrimination or failure to accommodate in the RIF context.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of federal claims (Title VII/ADA/ADEA) | Handbook waiver shouldn’t bar federal suits; Thompson timely filed after EEOC right‑to‑sue | Contract shortens limitations to 6 months; claims untimely | Federal claims timely — contractual shortening of IDEA/Title VII/ADEA limitations prospectively waives substantive rights; Logan extended to ADA and ADEA so six‑month contract cannot bar federal claims brought within statutory EEOC periods. |
| Timeliness of Ohio state claims (OCRC/O.R.C. claims) | Handbook not binding; handbook said noncontractual | Handbook acknowledgment’s six‑month limitation governs state claims | State claims untimely — contractual 6‑month period enforceable for Ohio claims; Thompson filed late. |
| ADA discrimination (RIF context — singled out because of disability) | Thompson argued Fresh Products knew/perceived her disability and singled her out for layoff due to her part‑time request | Employer says layoff was RIF based on shift‑preference survey; Thompson failed to select a shift and was thus chosen | No prima facie showing of discrimination; summary judgment affirmed — plaintiff did not provide additional circumstantial/statistical evidence that employer singled her out in the RIF. |
| ADA failure to accommodate / interactive process | Thompson requested part‑time as an accommodation because of arthritis; employer failed to engage | Employer says part‑time would eliminate an essential function (full ten‑hour shifts); company rarely uses part‑time production workers | Claim fails — part‑time was not a reasonable accommodation for production role; working full shifts is an essential function; summary judgment affirmed. |
| ADEA (age discrimination in RIF) | Statistical/circumstantial evidence: terminated employees were older on average; younger employee retained | Statistics sample too small; nondiscriminatory reasons (productivity/attendance) explain terminations | No genuine dispute — statistics and comparisons insufficient to show but‑for age discrimination; summary judgment affirmed. |
| Title VII / Race discrimination | Claimed racial disparity in those laid off and retention of a white employee with worse metrics | Workforce demographics and small sample size undermine inference; nondiscriminatory reasons | No prima facie showing — statistics unreliable given small sample and majority non‑white workforce; summary judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Logan v. MGM Grand Detroit Casino, 939 F.3d 824 (6th Cir. 2019) (limitations in Title VII are substantive and may not be prospectively shortened by contract)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden‑shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Barnes v. GenCorp Inc., 896 F.2d 1457 (6th Cir. 1990) (RIF context: plaintiff must show evidence employer singled them out)
- Thurman v. DaimlerChrysler, 397 F.3d 352 (6th Cir. 2005) (upheld contractual limitations where statute lacked self‑contained limitations)
- Heimeshoff v. Hartford Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 571 U.S. 99 (2013) (upheld contractual limitations in ERISA context; distinguished)
- Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (2009) (ADEA requires but‑for causation)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard)
- Rorrer v. City of Stow, 743 F.3d 1025 (6th Cir. 2014) (failure to engage in interactive process is not an independent ADA claim)
- Kleiber v. Honda of Am. Mfg., 485 F.3d 862 (6th Cir. 2007) (interactive process and accommodation reasonableness)
- Babb v. Maryville Anesthesiologists P.C., 942 F.3d 308 (6th Cir. 2019) (definition of "regarded as" disabled post‑ADAAA)