Karl Melange v. City of Center Line
482 F. App'x 81
6th Cir.2012Background
- Melange, a Center Line custodian, suffered hydrocephalus and other injuries, leading to disability leave beginning July 2007.
- He was on short-term disability, then long-term disability for 26 weeks as per a CBA; his LTDS expired July 14, 2008.
- Medical evaluations in 2008 showed Melange unable to return to work; doctors recommended further evaluation.
- Center Line terminated Melange on July 31, 2008, citing the CBA rule that employees unable to return after 26 weeks of LTD are terminated.
- Lustig later reevaluated Melange and suggested a supervised return to work; Center Line received this after termination.
- Melange filed an EEOC claim and then suit alleging ADA and PWDCRA violations; district court granted summary judgment for Center Line.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the CBA leave policy violates the ADA as facially used. | Melange argues the policy unlawfully terminates disabled employees. | Center Line asserts the policy is uniform and does not distinguish disabled status. | No; policy is facially compliant and uniformly applied. |
| Whether Center Line failed to accommodate Melange prior to termination. | Melange never requested accommodation, so interactive process not triggered. | No accommodation request; termination proper under policy. | Centre Line did not violate the ADA because no accommodation request was made. |
| Whether Melange was a “qualified individual” under the ADA given his return-to-work status. | If Melange could be accommodated, he might be qualified. | Absent authorization to return to work, he cannot be qualified. | Melange was not qualified because he lacked authorization to return. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gantt v. Wilson Sporting Goods Co., 143 F.3d 1042 (6th Cir. 1998) (attendance prerequisites bar qualification under the ADA)
- Walsh v. United Parcel Service, 201 F.3d 718 (6th Cir. 2000) (one-year disability leave is not an unlawful extension of leave as accommodation)
- Kleiber v. Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc., 485 F.3d 862 (6th Cir. 2007) (interactive process after accommodation request)
- Johnson v. Cleveland City Sch. Dist., 443 F. App’x 974 (6th Cir. 2011) (burden on employee to request accommodation; interactive process triggered by request)
- DiCarlo v. Potter, 358 F.3d 408 (6th Cir. 2004) (elements of prima facie case for disability discrimination)
- Lockard v. Gen. Motors Corp., 52 F. App’x 782 (6th Cir. 2002) (no interactive process without an accommodation request)