Kristen Williams v. AT&T Mobility Servs.
847 F.3d 384
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Kirsten Williams worked as an AT&T Customer Service Representative (CSR) from 2006 until termination in July 2014; CSRs must be physically present and logged in to take customer calls.
- AT&T had strict Attendance Guidelines: unscheduled absences accrue attendance points; eight points can lead to termination; approved STD, FMLA, or ADA accommodations do not accrue points.
- Williams suffered from depression and anxiety, had extended intermittent leaves in 2013–2014, and accumulated 16 attendance points by mid-2014; many absences were denied STD leave for insufficient medical documentation.
- Williams requested accommodations (flexible start time, additional/modified breaks, and leave) via supervisors and the third-party IDSC; medical providers gave mixed notes—some recommending breaks/flexible start times, others stating she was unfit to work during treatment.
- AT&T issued multiple return-to-work deadlines and waited for IDSC determinations; after concluding Williams still had a terminable number of attendance points even if some disputed leave were allowed, AT&T terminated her for job abandonment and attendance-policy violations.
- Williams sued under the ADA (failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, disparate treatment, and retaliation); district court found she was disabled but granted summary judgment to AT&T on all claims; Sixth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to accommodate | Williams: needed flexible start time, more/modified breaks, and additional leave to perform CSR duties | AT&T: regular in-person attendance is an essential function; her proposed accommodations would not enable regular attendance | Williams was not otherwise qualified; requested accommodations were not reasonable and would not allow regular attendance |
| Interactive process | Williams: AT&T failed to engage meaningfully in identifying accommodations | AT&T: interactive-process claim fails because Williams was not a qualified individual even with accommodations | Court need not reach interactive-process failure because plaintiff failed to show she was qualified with accommodations |
| Disparate-treatment (disability discrimination) | Williams: termination resulted from disability | AT&T: terminated for excessive unscheduled absences per policy, legitimate nondiscriminatory reason | Plaintiff failed to show she was otherwise qualified; summary judgment for AT&T |
| Retaliation | Williams: termination was retaliatory for requesting accommodations/leave | AT&T: termination based on longstanding attendance problems; legitimate nondiscriminatory reason | No genuine dispute of pretext; temporal proximity alone insufficient; summary judgment for AT&T |
Key Cases Cited
- EEOC v. Ford Motor Co., 782 F.3d 753 (6th Cir. 2015) (regular in-person attendance is often an essential job function; employee with excessive absences not qualified)
- Cehrs v. Ne. Ohio Alzheimer’s Research Ctr., 155 F.3d 775 (6th Cir. 1998) (medical leave can be a reasonable accommodation in some circumstances)
- Kleiber v. Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc., 485 F.3d 862 (6th Cir. 2007) (elements of ADA failure-to-accommodate claim and definition of a qualified individual)
- Brenneman v. MedCentral Health Sys., 366 F.3d 412 (6th Cir. 2004) (excessive absenteeism can render an employee unqualified despite a disability)
- Walsh v. United Parcel Serv., 201 F.3d 718 (6th Cir. 2000) (additional leave may be unreasonable where employee has taken substantial leave and lacks clear prospects for recovery)