Kenneth Camp v. Bi-Lo, LLC
662 F. App'x 357
6th Cir.2016Background
- Kenneth Camp worked 38 years as a third-shift stock clerk for Bi-Lo; he has long‑standing scoliosis and limited lifting capacity.
- In 2012 a supervisor disclosed Camp’s back problem to the store director after the crew failed one night to finish shelving; Bi‑Lo then required a physician fitness-for-duty form.
- A doctor restricted Camp to a 35‑pound maximum; Bi‑Lo’s stock clerk job description (dated 2007) listed frequent lifting of 20–60 pounds and required greater lifting capacity.
- Bi‑Lo placed Camp on leave, required documentation clearing him to lift 60 pounds to return, and ultimately terminated him for failure to provide the form.
- Camp sued under the ADA and the ADEA (state claims abandoned); the magistrate judge granted summary judgment for Bi‑Lo, finding inability to lift >35 lbs was an essential function.
- The Sixth Circuit vacated and remanded, finding genuine factual disputes about whether heavy lifting is an essential function and whether reasonable accommodation was possible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether lifting >35 lbs is an "essential function" of the stock clerk job under the ADA | Camp: heavy lifting was not essential because he worked successfully for years under an informal arrangement with coworkers who handled heavy items | Bi‑Lo: written job description and HR judgment show frequent lifting up to 60 lbs is essential | Reversed district court: material factual disputes exist about essentiality; jury must weigh written JD against long‑standing workplace practice and co‑worker testimony |
| Whether Bi‑Lo failed to provide a reasonable accommodation | Camp: informal team arrangement was a reasonable accommodation and caused no undue hardship | Bi‑Lo: cannot require coworkers to permanently perform essential functions; doctor’s limits preclude safe performance | Reversed: evidence that informal accommodation worked for years and Bi‑Lo produced no evidence of undue hardship; jury issue remains |
| Whether summary judgment was proper on ADA claim | Camp: summary judgment inappropriate because disputed facts exist on essential functions and accommodation | Bi‑Lo: undisputed job requirements make Camp unqualified as a matter of law | Reversed and remanded for trial because reasonable jurors could find for Camp |
| Whether summary judgment was proper on ADEA claim | Camp: same factual disputes (qualification, motive) support ADEA claim; evidence suggests age-related motive | Bi‑Lo: same qualification-based defense | Reversed as to ADEA too; factual disputes preclude summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Sanilac Cty., 606 F.3d 240 (6th Cir. 2010) (summary judgment standard review)
- Keith v. Cty. of Oakland, 703 F.3d 918 (6th Cir. 2013) (factors for essential‑function analysis)
- E.E.O.C. v. Ford Motor Co., 782 F.3d 753 (6th Cir. 2015) (applying regulatory factors to essential‑function inquiry)
- Rorrer v. City of Stow, 743 F.3d 1025 (6th Cir. 2014) (supervisor testimony can rebut written job description)
- Adair v. City of Muskogee, 823 F.3d 1297 (10th Cir. 2016) (context where physical inability creates serious consequences)
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (U.S. 2002) (prima facie elements summary)
- Rowan v. Lockheed Martin Energy Sys., Inc., 360 F.3d 544 (6th Cir. 2004) (ADEA prima facie standard)