Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., 774 F.3d 127

Manning, a full-time Kohl’s sales associate with Type I diabetes, requested a predictable day schedule (no swing shifts) after her doctor linked erratic hours to dangerous glucose fluctuations.
Manager Carr sent the doctor’s note to HR; HR replied that Manning, as a full-time associate, could not be excused from nights but could avoid swing shifts.
At a March 31, 2010 meeting Manning asked for a steady midday schedule; Carr said she could not promise a consistent 9–5 schedule. Manning announced she would quit, cleaned out her locker, and left.
Carr later pursued Manning and called her again offering to discuss alternatives; Manning did not engage further and Kohl’s treated her departure as voluntary.
EEOC sued Kohl’s on Manning’s behalf alleging failure to provide a reasonable accommodation under the ADA and constructive discharge; district court granted summary judgment for Kohl’s, and the First Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Kohl’s failed to reasonably accommodate Manning in violation of the ADA	Manning (via EEOC) contends she requested a predictable day schedule supported by a doctor’s note and Kohl’s refused, terminating the interactive process	Kohl’s argues it engaged in the interactive process in good faith, offered to avoid swing shifts, and Manning refused to cooperate or consider alternatives	Court held Kohl’s engaged in good-faith interactive efforts and Manning’s refusal to participate doomed the ADA claim; summary judgment for Kohl’s affirmed
Whether Manning was constructively discharged	EEOC argues staying on erratic shifts posed imminent, serious health risks (ketoacidosis/coma), making resignation compelled	Kohl’s contends a reasonable person would not be forced to resign because Kohl’s made overtures to discuss accommodations after Manning left, so her resignation was voluntary	Court held a reasonable person would not have felt compelled to resign given Kohl’s subsequent offers to discuss alternatives; constructive discharge claim fails

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
Enica v. Principi, 544 F.3d 328 (1st Cir. 2008) (interactive process requires bilateral, good-faith communication)
Phelps v. Optima Health, Inc., 251 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 2001) (employer not liable if it makes reasonable efforts to communicate and provide accommodations)
Freadman v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 484 F.3d 91 (1st Cir. 2007) (elements for ADA discrimination claim)
Griffin v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 661 F.3d 216 (5th Cir. 2011) (difficulty assessing accommodations when employee withdraws)
Colwell v. Rite Aid Corp., 602 F.3d 495 (3d Cir. 2010) (employer’s overtures may be insufficient where manager had flatly refused requested accommodations)
Torrech-Hernández v. Gen. Elec. Co., 519 F.3d 41 (1st Cir. 2008) (objective "reasonable person" standard for constructive discharge)