Day v. National Electrical Contractors Ass'n, 91 F. Supp. 3d 1008

District Court adopts Magistrate Judge Bowman’s R&R and grants summary judgment for Butler JATC; case dismissed with prejudice.
Plaintiff was in an apprenticeship with Butler JATC starting August 2010; he has irritable bowel syndrome and other non-disabling conditions.
Butler JATC’s governance includes six members; attendance policy required 180 hours of related coursework yearly and a probationary period.
Plaintiff repeatedly missed classes; in 2011-2012 policy changes tightened absences and culminated in termination in March 2012.
EEOC investigation noted lack of evidence of accommodation requests; Plaintiff never employees or receives W-2s from Butler JATC.
Plaintiff asserted ADA claims (failure to accommodate and termination) but court found no employer-employee relationship and no disability-based qualified status.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Butler JATC was Plaintiff’s employer under the ADA	Plaintiff implied employer status through the ADA claim.	Plaintiff was not an employee; no employer relationship.	No employer-employee relationship found.
Whether Butler JATC was a covered entity under the ADA	Butler JATC as a joint labor-management committee could be liable.	Absent employee status, liability as covered entity limited; no discovery on coverage.	Summary judgment on coverage/agency theory granted.
Whether Plaintiff was disabled under the ADA	IBS constitutes disability limiting major life activities.	Plaintiff failed to show disability affecting major life activities; or any substantial limit.	Not clearly disabled; summary judgment warranted on this basis.
Whether Plaintiff was 'qualified' for the apprenticeship under the ADA	Absenteeism could be accommodated; attendance not necessarily essential.	Regular attendance was an essential function; policy violations justify unqualified status.	Plaintiff not qualified; attendance policy and termination supported.
Whether FMLA claim was improperly raised by amendment	Plaintiff should be allowed to assert FMLA claim.	Complaint did not include FMLA claim; amendment too late; alternative merits denied.	Amendment not allowed; not needed due to merits.

Cehrs v. Northeast Ohio Alzheimer’s Research Ctr., 155 F.3d 775 (6th Cir. 1998) (attendance as essential function; not qualified without it)
Gantt v. Wilson Sporting Goods Co., 143 F.3d 1042 (6th Cir. 1998) (attendance can be essential function; unqualified due to attendance)
Cantrell v. Nissan N. Am. Inc., 145 Fed.Appx. 99 (6th Cir. 2005) (summary judgment upheld where attendance problems)
Brenneman v. MedCentral Health Sys., 366 F.3d 412 (6th Cir. 2004) (attendance can be an essential function)
Rask v. Fresenius Med. Care N.A., 509 F.3d 466 (8th Cir. 2007) (attendance as essential function in care settings)
Jovanovic v. In-Sink-Erator Div. of Emerson Elec. Co., 201 F.3d 894 (7th Cir. 2000) (regular attendance often essential)
Waggoner v. Olin Corp., 169 F.3d 481 (7th Cir. 1999) (employer not obliged to tolerate erratic attendance)
Monette v. Electronic Data Sys. Corp., 90 F.3d 1173 (6th Cir. 1996) (McDonnell Douglas framework applies to discrimination, not failure to accommodate)
Hedrick v. W. Reserve Care Sys., 355 F.3d 444 (6th Cir. 2004) (analysis of disability-based termination claims)
Cash v. Siegel-Robert, Inc., 548 F.Appx. 330 (6th Cir. 2013) (direct evidence of discrimination in failure-to-accommodate cases)