534 F. App'x 487
6th Cir.2013Background
- Kempter, MBT customer service representative, developed carpal tunnel syndrome from extensive typing.
- Doctor Weiss issued a permanent restriction: no keyboard typing more than 2 hours per day.
- MBT determined Kempter could return without restrictions per independent medical review, and disability benefits were terminated.
- Kempter was absent March 23–25 and was eventually terminated April 19 for the fifth chargeable disability absence under MBT's attendance policy.
- MBT's policy distinguishes chargeable disability absences from excluded absences (e.g., FMLA, paid sick leave); Kempter had a long, troubled attendance history.
- District court granted summary judgment for MBT on ADA grounds; this appeal seeks sanctions for a frivolous appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kempter is an ADA disability. | Kempter argues she is disabled due to carpal tunnel. | MBT contends the impairment is not a disability under the ADA. | The court did not decide this issue; resolvable without ADA Amendments analysis. |
| Whether Kempter could perform the essential functions with a reasonable accommodation. | Kempter proposed potential accommodations (light duty, minimal typing, vacant positions). | No accommodation was reasonable or available without undue hardship. | No proposed accommodation was objectively reasonable; MBT's summary judgment on this ground affirmed. |
| Whether light-duty (as Rodabaugh had) is a valid permanent accommodation. | Rodabaugh's light-duty arrangement should be available to Kempter. | Permanent light-duty is not a valid accommodation and would create a non-viable permanent position. | Not reasonable; it would be improper to convert temporary light-duty into a permanent position. |
| Whether the vacant technical associate position could be used to accommodate Kempter. | A vacant technical associate role could accommodate Kempter with limited typing. | Position required typing and would displace another employee under the CBA. | Not a valid accommodation; Kempter was not qualified and would violate seniority rights. |
| Whether the appeal merits sanctions. | Appeal challenges district court's reasoning under ADA standards. | Appeal is frivolous and reasserts weak arguments; sanctions warranted. | Sanctions affirmed; Kempter's counsel ordered to pay $5,000. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kleiber v. Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc., 485 F.3d 862 (6th Cir. 2007) (elements of ADA prima facie and reasonableness)
- Monette v. Electronic Data Sys. Corp., 90 F.3d 1173 (6th Cir. 1996) (reasonable accommodation and essential functions; pre-amendment framework)
- Hoskins v. Oakland Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 227 F.3d 719 (6th Cir. 2000) (temporary light-duty not automatically permanent; balance with essential function)
- Smith v. Ameritech, 129 F.3d 857 (6th Cir. 1997) (avoid creation of new positions invalid; temporary accommodation limits)
- U.S. Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391 (2002) (seniority concerns and accommodation requirements under ADA)
- Hedrick v. W. Reserve Care Sys., 355 F.3d 444 (6th Cir. 2004) (essential functions and reasonable accommodation standards)
- Monette v. Electronic Data Sys. Corp., 90 F.3d 1173 (6th Cir. 1996) (reassignment and reasonable accommodation principles)