290 F. Supp. 3d 723
S.D. Ohio2017Background
- Beth Harrison, a long‑time P&G employee, worked in U.S. Customs Compliance (2011–2015) and had longstanding approved intermittent FMLA for her son; she later obtained FMLA for her own depression.
- New manager Barbara Konerman (arrived Feb 2012) raised attendance and unpredictability concerns about Harrison, citing late arrivals, early departures, and last‑minute notices (some FMLA, some not).
- Harrison received a "3" (below expectations) rating for FY2013, was placed on a PIP (Nov 1, 2013), had work‑from‑home privileges curtailed, and was required to use vacation in four‑hour increments for FMLA time per new company policy.
- After further performance concerns and a fitness‑for‑duty evaluation in March 2014, Harrison took medical leave, subsequently sought a transfer as an accommodation, returned in June 2014, later upgraded to a "2" and transferred to Trademark Licensing.
- Harrison sued alleging disability discrimination and failure to accommodate under Ohio Rev. Code § 4112, and FMLA interference and retaliation. District court granted P&G summary judgment and dismissed all claims with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination under O.R.C. § 4112 | Harrison contends adverse actions (3 ratings, PIP, loss of WFH, use‑of‑vacation rule, doctor‑note requirement, reassignment) were motivated by her depression | P&G argues many measures were lawful, nondiscriminatory, or not "adverse" (no demotion/pay cut), and some reflected company policy or needed adjustments due to FMLA absences | Court: Harrison cannot show an adverse employment action of sufficient magnitude under § 4112; discrimination claim dismissed |
| Failure to accommodate (transfer request) | Harrison requested a transfer as an accommodation per fitness‑for‑duty report | P&G contends she could perform essential job functions; transfer was not reasonable and P&G engaged the interactive process | Court: Transfer was not a reasonable accommodation because Harrison remained able to perform essential duties; claim dismissed |
| FMLA interference | Harrison alleges P&G used her FMLA leave against her via negative reviews, PIP, lost privileges, and reassignment | P&G says actions were legitimate responses to attendance, last‑minute notices, or were permitted by FMLA/company policy | Court: Plaintiff made prima facie interference claim but P&G articulated legitimate reasons; plaintiff failed to show pretext; claim dismissed |
| FMLA retaliation | Harrison alleges retaliation for exercising FMLA (adverse actions after notice/use) | P&G asserts adverse actions were motivated by non‑FMLA attendance problems and failure to give proper notice, not FMLA use | Court: Although prima facie established, P&G offered nondiscriminatory reasons and Harrison failed to show those reasons were pretextual; claim dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard) (establishes burden on moving party)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard) (genuine issue of material fact inquiry)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (framework for burden‑shifting in discrimination cases)
- Kocsis v. Multi‑Care Management, Inc., 97 F.3d 876 (6th Cir. 1996) (constructive notice and ADA‑related notice principles)
- Wysong v. Dow Chem. Co., 503 F.3d 441 (6th Cir.) (elements of FMLA interference)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (adverse action scope and retaliation principles)
- Whitfield v. Tennessee, 639 F.3d 253 (6th Cir. 2011) (ADA/rehabilitation analysis and relation to state law)