Johnson v. University Hospitals Physician Services
617 F. App'x 487
6th Cir.2015Background
- Johnson worked as a provider enrollment specialist and was instructed by her employer (University Hospitals Physician Services) to place her work phone number in CMS Form 855I section 2B for contractor (Cigna) contact.
- Johnson became concerned that using her number might violate CMS rules or be criminally false and repeatedly contacted Cigna and the employer’s compliance officers about the practice.
- Supervisors documented performance concerns (nodding off, napping at desk) and referred Johnson for a fitness‑for‑duty evaluation after observing her sleeping at work; the evaluator found no functional impairment but recommended leave and psychiatric follow‑up.
- Johnson took leave, submitted some medical paperwork, but did not provide new certification requested in August; HR gave a return‑by date and warned of termination if she did not return.
- Johnson filed an EEOC charge alleging perceived‑disability discrimination; upon returning to work, she refused to follow the employer’s instruction to use her phone number on Form 855I and was terminated for refusal to perform an essential job function.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the employer on perceived‑disability discrimination and retaliation claims; the Sixth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether employer “regarded” Johnson as disabled (ADA §12112/Ohio law) based on referral for fitness‑for‑duty and alleged delay in return to work | Referral and leave handling show employer perceived her as disabled | Referral addressed job performance (sleeping at work), and any delay stemmed from paperwork/miscommunication, not perception of disability | No — referral and leave do not establish employer regarded her as substantially limited in major life activity of working; discrimination claim fails |
| Whether termination was retaliation for filing EEOC charge (ADA §12203/Ohio law) | Temporal proximity and filing EEOC charge show retaliation; termination followed shortly after charge | Termination was for refusal to perform an essential job duty (using the work number on Form 855I); no evidence the reason was pretextual | No — plaintiff failed to show pretext; acknowledged she would likely have stayed if she complied |
| Whether employer’s investigation/contact with Cigna (CMS compliance) bears on discrimination/retaliation claims | Employer’s lack of admissible proof of contacting Cigna undermines its defense | Whether employer investigated CMS compliance is irrelevant to whether termination was discriminatory/retaliatory | Not material — court declines to resolve admissibility; issue not dispositive to ADA claims |
| Whether “honest‑belief” defense applies | Argued employer actions were not legitimately motivated | Employer relied on non‑discriminatory reasons and reasonable belief about job duties/performance | Court did not reach the honest‑belief rule because plaintiff failed to show pretext |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden‑shifting framework for circumstantial employment discrimination)
- Murphy v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 527 U.S. 516 (definition of "regarded as" disabled)
- Sullivan v. River Valley Sch. Dist., 197 F.3d 804 (employer perception of job performance ≠ necessarily viewing employee as disabled)
- Demyanovich v. Cadon Plating & Coatings, L.L.C., 747 F.3d 419 (prima facie elements for perceived‑disability claim)
- Daugherty v. Sajar Plastics, Inc., 544 F.3d 696 (inability to perform a single job is not a substantial limitation on working)
- Donald v. Sybra, Inc., 667 F.3d 757 (temporal proximity alone insufficient to prove pretext)
- Smith v. Chrysler Corp., 155 F.3d 799 (methods for proving pretext in termination cases)
- Havensure, L.L.C. v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 595 F.3d 312 (standard of review for summary judgment in Sixth Circuit)