Janice Gecewicz v. Henry Ford Macomb Hospital Cor
683 F.3d 316
6th Cir.2012Background
- Henry Ford Macomb Hospital has an attendance policy penalizing unscheduled absences via occurrences (seven in 12 months triggers a warning; nine allows termination).
- Earned Time Off (ETO) and FMLA leave are available for scheduled absences, with ETO accrual at 30 days per year.
- Gecewicz, employed since 1998 and terminated in 2008, was supervised by Rogers; her absences included surgery-related leaves approved by Rogers.
- Gecewicz contends May 22, 2008 absence was scheduled and approved, but the time-off form allegedly not returned; hospital treated it as a No Call/No Show, contributing to her ten occurrences.
- The district court assumed most Gecewicz facts in her favor for summary judgment but found she failed to show Henry Ford regarded her as disabled under the ADA; on appeal, the court reviews the summary judgment de novo and analyzes the “regarded as disabled” claim and the pretext theory.
- Gecewicz appeals the ADA ruling, arguing multiple statements by Rogers show perceived impairment and ongoing disability; the court affirms summary judgment for Henry Ford.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gecewicz was 'regarded as disabled' under the ADA | Rogers’ comments showed perceived impairment and ongoing disability. | Absence-focused conduct and statements do not show a lasting impairment. | No; insufficient evidence of being regarded as having an impairment >6 months. |
| Whether Henry Ford’s reason for termination was pretextual | Evidence of May 22 scheduling and forms suggests pretext. | Termination based on excessive unscheduled absences; May 22 issue not proven as scheduled. | No; evidence does not establish pretext. |
| Whether the district court properly applied the summary judgment standard and evidence on the 'regarded as disabled' issue | District court disregarded pertinent evidence. | Court adhered to proper standard; isolated statements insufficient. | Affirmed decision granting summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brenneman v. MedCentral Health Sys., 366 F.3d 412 (6th Cir. 2004) ( ADA attendance/qualification analysis; absence can render unqualified)
- Gantt v. Wilson Sporting Goods Co., 143 F.3d 1042 (6th Cir. 1998) (attendance burdens affect 'qualified' inquiry under ADA)
- Milholland v. Sumner Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 569 F.3d 562 (6th Cir. 2009) (defines ‘regarded as’ and duration considerations)
- Watts v. United Parcel Serv., 378 F. App’x 520 (6th Cir. 2010) (addressing ‘regarded as’ impairment duration requirement)
- Nasser v. City of Columbus, 92 F. App’x 261 (6th Cir. 2004) (absenteeism not a disability; on point for ADA qualification)