Gleed v. AT & T Mobility Services, LLC
613 F. App'x 535
6th Cir.2015Background
- Gleed, a former AT&T employee, has chronic cellulitis and eczema that cause pain and infection risk when standing for long periods.
- AT&T moved the store to standing terminals with no desks after acquiring Centennial Wireless, requiring prolonged standing.
- Gleed asked to sit and provided a nurse-practitioner note; supervisor refused and another coworker sat, highlighting a chair policy disparity.
- Gleed needed daily IV treatments for infection; he requested a schedule adjustment, which AT&T did not accommodate, and HR suggested unpaid leave; Gleed resigned after doctor’s warning.
- Gleed sued AT&T for ADA and Title VII claims; district court granted summary judgment for AT&T on most claims; appellate court reverses on ADA reasonable accommodation, remands for proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADA reasonable accommodation for seat usage | Gleed’s chair request was a reasonable accommodation. | AT&T claims standing was essential; no undue hardship shown. | Gleed’s chair accommodation is reasonably on its face; factual dispute remains. |
| ADA failure-to-notify procedure | Gleed notified supervisor; Guide not provided to Gleed; notice given. | Proper notification per internal guide required. | Summary judgment improper on this ground; Gleed did notify via supervisor. |
| ADA IV-treatment scheduling accommodation | Interactive process failed due to denial of scheduling accommodation. | Gleed quit before process could finalize. | Gleed caused breakdown; summary judgment proper on IV-treatment claim. |
| Title VII adverse employment action (sex discrimination) | Failure to allow sitting changed employment status. | Non-discriminatory, no adverse action occurred. | No adverse employment action; Title VII claim fails. |
| Constructive discharge | Denial of accommodations showed intent to force resignation. | Denial alone insufficient to prove constructive discharge. | No evidence of intent to force quit; constructive-discharge claim barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Talley v. Family Dollar Stores of Ohio, 542 F.3d 1099 (6th Cir. 2008) (stool as accommodation may be reasonable)
- Rorrer v. City of Stow, 743 F.3d 1025 (6th Cir. 2014) (interactive process duty and how breakdown shifts responsibility)
- U.S. Airways v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391 (U.S. Supreme Court 2002) (reasonableness of accommodations and undue hardship framework)
- Gaines v. Runyon, 107 F.3d 1171 (6th Cir. 1997) ( Rehab Act analog cited; ADA higher standard possible)
- Landefeld v. Manon General Hospital, 994 F.2d 1178 (6th Cir. 1993) ( Rehabilitation Act context for accommodations)
- Lewis v. Humboldt Acquisition Corp., 681 F.3d 312 (6th Cir. 2012) (en banc discussion of ADA standards)
- Regan v. Faurecia Automotive Seating, Inc., 679 F.3d 475 (6th Cir. 2012) (interactive process and accommodation obligations)
- Laster v. City of Kalamazoo, 746 F.3d 714 (6th Cir. 2014) (constructive-discharge standards)