952 F.3d 821
6th Cir.2020Background
- Jason Small, a longtime electrician for Memphis Light, was injured in 2013 and reassigned; he wanted a revenue-inspector job but was offered (and accepted) a service-dispatcher role under threat of termination.
- Small, a Jehovah’s Witness, said the dispatcher schedule conflicted with his Wednesday evening and Sunday religious services and Saturday community obligations and requested reassignment or shift changes.
- Memphis Light denied most accommodations citing undue hardship and union seniority rules, suggested voluntary shift swaps, and later offered a quarterly "blanket swap" option.
- Small sued in 2017 for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate religious practice, hostile work environment, and retaliation; the district court granted summary judgment for Memphis Light.
- On the eve of the summary-judgment ruling Small moved to enforce an alleged pre-ruling settlement; the district court found no meeting of the minds (dispute over a non-disparagement clause) and denied enforcement.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed both the summary judgment and the denial of enforcement on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination (refusal to assign inspector) | Memphis Light refused to reassign Small because of his disability | Employer relied on disability committee finding Small could not perform inspector duties and asserted an honest belief in that determination | Affirmed — plaintiff failed to show pretext or to rebut employer's honest belief |
| Failure to accommodate disability (new theory raised in reply) | Employer failed to provide reasonable disability accommodations | Argument was not raised in opening brief; thus forfeited | Forfeited — court declined to consider the new theory |
| Religious accommodation / discrimination | Employer failed to accommodate Small’s religious schedule | Accommodation would impose undue hardship (operational disruption, burden on coworkers, seniority violation); employer offered limited alternatives | Affirmed — plaintiff did not meaningfully challenge undue-hardship showing and no liability established |
| Hostile work environment (religion) | Workplace conduct created a hostile environment based on religion | No evidence harassment was motivated by religion | Dismissed — no evidence of religiously motivated harassment |
| Retaliation | Adverse actions followed his complaints about discrimination | No evidence causal link between complaints and adverse actions | Dismissed — plaintiff presented no evidence of retaliation |
| Enforcement of alleged settlement | Parties reached binding settlement before summary judgment; offer was to remain open | No agreement on material term (non-disparagement); offer was revoked before acceptance | Affirmed — district court’s finding of no meeting of the minds not clearly erroneous; no binding settlement |
Key Cases Cited
- Groening v. Glen Lake Cmty. Sch., 884 F.3d 626 (6th Cir. 2018) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Ferrari v. Ford Motor Co., 826 F.3d 885 (6th Cir. 2016) (pretext inquiry and employer "honest belief" standard)
- Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63 (1977) (Title VII undue-hardship distilled to a "de minimis" cost test)
- Ansonia Bd. of Educ. v. Philbrook, 479 U.S. 60 (1986) (distinguishes duty to accommodate from undue-hardship inquiry)
- Therma-Scan, Inc. v. Thermoscan, Inc., 217 F.3d 414 (6th Cir. 2000) (clear-error review of district court finding no settlement)
- Brock v. Scheuner Corp., 841 F.2d 151 (6th Cir. 1988) (settlement requires agreement on all material terms)
- Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. City of White House, 36 F.3d 540 (6th Cir. 1994) (offeror may revoke an offer before acceptance)
- Henschel v. Clare Cty. Rd. Comm’n, 737 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 2013) (employer not required to create new positions as accommodation)