414 F. App'x 764
6th Cir.2011Background
- Baker, a long-time WRD forklift operator, has dilated cardiomyopathy and pacemaker/defibrillator implants.
- In 2006 Baker sought to return to work with accommodations to avoid EMI risks; WRD initiated an “accommodation review.”
- WRD’s Land conducted letters and sought physician input; no EMI testing or consultation with Medtronic consultants occurred.
- WRD offered Baker a return-to-work with an EMF alarm only if he waived workers’ compensation rights; Baker refused due to loss of benefits and coverage.
- Baker was temporarily kept from working, then the jury found Baker was regarded as disabled, qualified to work, and entitled to damages for ADA/THRA/THA retaliation and lack of accommodation; district court later altered the relief.
- The district court ultimately granted judgment as a matter of law on the reasonable-accommodation claim, but affirmed retaliation verdict and damages, with additional fee rulings; the Sixth Circuit consolidated appeals and affirmed in full.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasonable accommodation for regarded-as-disabled | Baker argues there was a duty to accommodate a regarded-as individual. | WRD contends Workman bars accommodation for regarded-as disability. | Workman remains binding; no duty to accommodate regarded-as disabled. |
| Retaliation and causal connection | Baker’s demand for accommodation caused the adverse action (waiver condition). | Waiver offer was non-retaliatory, health-protective necessity. | Sufficient causal link; jury verdict on retaliation affirmed. |
| Damages for discrimination/retaliation under THA/THRA and ADA | Damages permitted under THA/THRA and ADA retaliation theories. | Limitations on damages under ADA discrimination claims. | THA damages affirmed; ADA retaliation damages foreseen under statute; no reversal of remedies. |
| Attorney-fees and supplemental fees | Prevailing party status supports fees; no abuse in fee rulings. | Fees should be reduced due to partial reversal. | District court’s fee awards affirmed; no abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Workman v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 165 F.3d 460 (6th Cir. 1999) (regarded-as disability not automatically excused from accommodation; regular practice evidence needed)
- Kelly v. Metallics West, Inc., 410 F.3d 670 (10th Cir. 2005) (courts endorse accommodation despite perceived disability to combat stereotypes)
- D’Angelo v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 422 F.3d 1220 (11th Cir. 2005) (ADA disability definition not to differentiate among prongs for accommodations)
- Weber v. Strippit, Inc., 186 F.3d 907 (8th Cir. 1999) (concerns about bizarre results from treating regarded-as differently for accommodations)
- Arline, School Bd. of Nassau County v. Nassau County, 480 U.S. 273 (1987) (Supreme Court interpretation guiding disability frameworks)