Green v. Bakemark USA, LLC
1:13-cv-00841
S.D. OhioJan 20, 2016Background
- Brian Green was BakeMark USA’s operations manager (hired 2010) and was diagnosed with thyroid cancer; he took multiple medical leaves in 2011–2012 and sought accommodations for reduced/limited hours.
- BakeMark approved initial protected leaves (including FMLA-designated leave), repeatedly held Green’s position open, paid STD benefits, and flew in other managers to cover his duties.
- BakeMark discovered operational deficiencies and DOT log violations; Green received written counselings in Oct. 2011 relating to performance and DOT issues.
- In Feb.–June 2012 Green submitted various doctor notes with temporary hour restrictions; BakeMark extended leave, requested clarification, provided temporary accommodations, and engaged in further interactive-process communications.
- By September 2012 Green told BakeMark he was indefinitely unable to work; BakeMark terminated him as unable to accommodate an indefinite leave. Green later obtained SSDI and LTD benefits claiming inability to work since May 2, 2012.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to accommodate (ADA/Ohio) | Green: BakeMark refused reasonable schedule accommodations (reduced hours / phased return) and failed to properly engage in interactive process. | BakeMark: offered reasonable alternatives (extended leave, temporary accommodations), essential job functions required more hours, and no unlawful blanket restriction policy. | Court: Grant summary judgment to BakeMark — no genuine dispute; leave and alternatives were reasonable and Green could not perform essential functions. |
| Discriminatory/constructive discharge | Green: repeated failures to accommodate and adverse treatment forced constructive discharge. | BakeMark: acted for legitimate business reasons (performance issues, DOT violations, inability to accommodate indefinite leave). | Court: Grant summary judgment to BakeMark — no unlawful conduct amounting to constructive discharge. |
| Retaliation (Ohio Rev. Code §4112) | Green: protected activities (leave requests, accommodation requests, EEOC charge) caused disciplinary actions and termination. | BakeMark: adverse actions were based on preexisting concerns, independent investigations, and business needs; temporal proximity alone is insufficient. | Court: Grant summary judgment to BakeMark — plaintiff failed to show causal connection or pretext. |
| Punitive damages | Green: BakeMark acted with malice/reckless indifference (HR knew ADA obligations; alleged misrepresentations/policies). | BakeMark: acted in good faith, engaged interactive process, and made nondiscriminatory business decisions. | Court: Grant summary judgment to BakeMark — no evidence of malice or conscious disregard of rights. |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden-shifting standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment and genuine issue standard)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (summary judgment inference and evidence evaluation)
- EEOC v. Ford Motor Co., 782 F.3d 753 (6th Cir. 2015) (reasonable accommodations and essential functions analysis)
- Talley v. Family Dollar Stores of Ohio, Inc., 542 F.3d 1099 (6th Cir. 2008) (when failure to accommodate can support constructive discharge)
- Cehrs v. Northeast Ohio Alzheimer’s Research Ctr., 155 F.3d 755 (6th Cir. 1998) (medical leave as a possible reasonable accommodation)
- Cleveland v. Policy Management Sys. Corp., 526 U.S. 795 (SSD/ADA claims consistency analysis)
- Gecewicz v. Henry Ford Macomb Hosp. Corp., 683 F.3d 316 (6th Cir. 2012) (elements of ADA discriminatory discharge claim)
- Kolstad v. American Dental Ass’n, 527 U.S. 526 (punitive damages standard under Title VII/analogous ADA analysis)
- Manzer v. Diamond Shamrock Chems. Co., 29 F.3d 1078 (6th Cir. 1994) (pretext standards for employment actions)