27 F.4th 1221
6th Cir.2022Background
- Blanchet was hired by Charter as a door-to-door Direct Sales Representative and had strong prior performance and attendance.
- She took maternity leave and then developed postpartum depression; she obtained FMLA, short-term, and then long-term disability leave administered through Sedgwick.
- In February 2017 her doctor gave a note stating return-to-work was "unknown" but Charter should "expect April," and Blanchet requested a 60-day extension through April 3, 2017.
- Sedgwick representatives verbally told Blanchet not to worry about her job and that approval was expected; Blanchet relied on those assurances.
- Charter sent a termination letter (effective January 10, 2017) before Blanchet received written approval; an approval letter for the extended leave arrived ten days after the termination letter and internal emails showed HR had approved the extension around the same time.
- Blanchet sued under the ADA for failure to accommodate; the district court granted summary judgment for Charter, and the Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper legal framework for failure-to-accommodate claims | Kleiber and precedent require application of the direct-evidence test to failure-to-accommodate claims | District court applied the indirect (McDonnell Douglas) framework; Charter urged that indirect test was proper | Court: apply the direct-evidence framework because failure to accommodate is discrimination per statute; district court erred in using indirect test |
| Whether Blanchet was an "otherwise qualified" individual | She would have been qualified with the requested temporary medical leave—her pre-illness record was strong and return-to-work was plausible | Charter: must evaluate qualifications at termination date; she could not perform essential functions then and lacked medical release | Court: qualifications must be assessed with the proposed accommodation (i.e., when she would return); a reasonable jury could find she would be qualified after leave |
| Whether a 60‑day extension of leave was a reasonable accommodation | The doctor provided an expected return timeframe, HR/Sedgwick indicated approval, and Charter’s own communications treat the leave as possible | Charter: doctor’s "expect April" was too vague and extended leave can be unreasonable or unduly burdensome; prior precedent permits denying further indefinite leave | Court: reasonableness is a fact question; a jury could find the leave reasonable given medical support, Sedgwick/HR assurances, and lack of employer engagement |
| Employer’s duty to engage in interactive process / evidentiary effect of Sedgwick communications | Charter’s failure to communicate directly and its reliance on Sedgwick meant it did not engage the employee; Charter led Blanchet to believe approval was forthcoming | Charter: administrative or timing errors do not create liability; Sedgwick’s verbal assurances were not dispositive | Court: employer’s failure to participate in the interactive process and its administrative mistakes create genuine disputes of material fact; Charter cannot use its non‑engagement to defeat the claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Kleiber v. Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc., 485 F.3d 862 (6th Cir. 2007) (failure-to-accommodate claims involve direct evidence and define the prima facie framework)
- Williams v. AT&T Mobility Servs. LLC, 847 F.3d 384 (6th Cir. 2017) (additional leave may be unreasonable where there is no clear prospect of recovery)
- Cehrs v. Ne. Ohio Alzheimer’s Rsch. Ctr., 155 F.3d 775 (6th Cir. 1998) (employer must show undue burden; if not shown, leave may be reasonable)
- Walsh v. United Parcel Serv., 201 F.3d 718 (6th Cir. 2000) (physician’s prognosis may be insufficient where no prospect of improvement is shown)
- U.S. Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391 (2002) (employee must show accommodation appears reasonable on its face)
- Hostettler v. College of Wooster, 895 F.3d 844 (6th Cir. 2018) (distinguishes direct vs. indirect evidence frameworks in ADA cases)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard)
- Norris v. Allied-Sysco Food Servs. Inc., 948 F. Supp. 1418 (N.D. Cal. 1996) (district court discussion that indefinite or lengthy leave may still be reasonable depending on burden)