640 F. App'x 429
6th Cir.2016Background
- David Neely, hired by Benchmark in Dec. 2011 and promoted then demoted, reported chronic sleep problems and occasional "micro-sleeps" but never obtained a definitive diagnosis or follow-up testing recommended by a sleep specialist.
- Supervisors documented poor job performance (slow helpdesk response, avoidance of tickets, inattentive behavior) and frequent sleeping at work; Neely admitted he did not seek medical treatment while employed.
- Benchmark issued a verbal reprimand (May 25, 2012), returned Neely to a Support Specialist role, and terminated him on June 1, 2012.
- Neely filed EEOC charges, received a right-to-sue letter, and sued claiming ADA and Ohio disability discrimination, retaliation, wrongful discharge, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Benchmark; the Sixth Circuit affirmed, concluding Neely failed to prove he was "disabled" under any ADA prong and failed to show he engaged in protected activity for retaliation; emotional-distress claim also failed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Neely was "disabled" under the ADA (physical/mental impairment substantially limiting a major life activity) | Neely alleged sleep disorder (sleep apnea, micro-sleeps) substantially limited sleeping/breathing. | Benchmark argued there was no medical diagnosis or corroborating evidence showing a substantially limiting impairment. | Court: No — self-reported symptoms and a specialist's preliminary impressions without diagnostic testing do not show a substantially limiting impairment. |
| Whether Neely had a "record of impairment" under the ADA | Neely pointed to physician notes and specialist impressions as evidence of a history of impairment. | Benchmark emphasized absence of a definitive diagnosis and Neely's failure to complete recommended tests. | Court: No — the record lacked the necessary medical evidence to show a history of a substantially limiting impairment. |
| Whether Benchmark "regarded as" Neely as having an impairment under the ADA | Neely argued employer comments and reactions showed Benchmark perceived him as impaired. | Benchmark argued awareness of symptoms is not the same as regarding him as physiologically impaired or substantially limited. | Court: No — employer awareness of symptoms did not demonstrate perception of a disabling impairment or the myths/stereotypes the ADA targets. |
| Whether Neely engaged in protected activity for ADA retaliation | Neely contended his complaint to a supervisor that it was unfair to use his sleeping disorder against him was protected activity. | Benchmark argued Neely neither requested an accommodation nor filed a formal complaint while employed; mere discussion of symptoms is not protected. | Court: No — complaining about perceived unfair treatment of sleep issues did not qualify as a protected activity absent a request for accommodation or formal charge. |
Key Cases Cited
- Simpson v. Vanderbilt University, [citation="359 F. App'x 562"] (6th Cir. 2009) (uncorroborated testimony about sleep habits insufficient to show disability)
- Boerst v. General Mills Operations, [citation="25 F. App'x 403"] (6th Cir. 2002) (sleeping two to four hours nightly not a substantial limitation)
- Whitfield v. Tennessee, 639 F.3d 253 (6th Cir. 2011) (elements required for an ADA discriminatory discharge claim)
- Bryson v. Regis Corp., 498 F.3d 561 (6th Cir. 2007) (retaliation claim may in some circumstances stand even if underlying disability claim fails)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard requires affirmative evidence to defeat a properly supported motion)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment appropriate where non-moving party lacks evidence on an essential element)