Gradek v. Horseshoe Cincinnati Management, LLC
1:16-cv-00270
| S.D. Ohio | Jun 14, 2017Background
- Gradek is disabled and alleges ADA discrimination and failure to accommodate against Horseshoe Cincinnati.
- Gradek was hired as a Table Games Supervisor at the Casino, which operates 24/7 with rotating shifts.
- Gradek suffered a knee injury in 2014; physician restrictions led to a temporary accommodation to sit or cover boxes.
- Horseshoe provided temporary accommodations and later placed Gradek on leave before terminating her in May 2015.
- Gradek proposed a long-term accommodation (sitting/relief string) to avoid standing, ambulating, or rotating among games.
- Horseshoe argues Gradek could not perform essential functions and offered an accounting clerk position, which Gradek rejected.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gradek was 'otherwise qualified' for the TGS role. | Gradek could perform essential functions with seated accommodations. | Standing, ambulating, and rotating among games are essential functions; Gradek cannot perform them. | Material facts preclude summary judgment on qualification. |
| Whether Horseshoe failed to provide a reasonable accommodation. | Accommodation to sit/relief string was reasonable and individualized. | Accommodation would burden operations and rotation is needed for game integrity. | Genuine issue of material fact as to reasonableness and interactive process. |
| Whether the interactive process was conducted in good faith. | Horseshoe did not adequately engage in the interactive process. | Horseshoe provided some accommodation and opportunities to seek other positions. | Fact dispute on good-faith interactive process; summary judgment denied on this point. |
| Whether Gradek was discriminated against based on disability due to failure to accommodate. | Failure to accommodate and ongoing accommodations indicate discrimination. | Accommodation decisions were based on essential function analysis and business needs. | Raised material facts regarding discrimination claim; not resolved at summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brenneman v. MedCentral Health Sys., 366 F.3d 412 (6th Cir. 2004) (case on ADA reasonable accommodation and undue burden factors)
- Rorrer v. City of Stow, 743 F.3d 1025 (6th Cir. 2014) (fact-specific inquiry for essential functions and assignment of duties)
- Keith v. County of Oakland, 703 F.3d 918 (6th Cir. 2013) (individualized, interactive inquiry under ADA)
- Dargis v. Sheahan, 526 F.3d 981 (7th Cir. 2008) (involves accommodation-related impairments and job duties)
- Keever v. City of Middletown, 145 F.3d 809 (6th Cir. 1998) (framework for evaluating reasonable accommodations)
- Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 (U.S. 1970) (summary judgment standard and evidence sufficiency principles)