History
  • No items yet
midpage
551 S.W.3d 36
Ky. Ct. App.
2018
Read the full case

Background

  • Khristina Larison worked as a Certified Nursing Assistant for Home of the Innocents (HOTI); she suffered a severe stroke on August 5, 2014 and was incapacitated for months.
  • Her husband, Charles Larison, requested FMLA paperwork from HOTI and emailed HOTI on August 13 asking for "discharge papers for resignation under medical." HOTI processed a separation marked as requested August 13.
  • Mr. Larison later submitted completed FMLA paperwork on August 22; HOTI had already terminated Ms. Larison’s employment before receiving those papers.
  • Ms. Larison sued in Jefferson Circuit Court asserting state-law KRS Chapter 344 claims: disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation; summary judgment was granted for HOTI and this appeal followed.
  • The trial and appellate courts analyzed (1) whether a voluntary resignation/adverse action occurred, (2) whether Ms. Larison was disabled under KRS 344, (3) whether she could perform essential job functions (with or without accommodation), and (4) whether HOTI failed to provide a reasonable accommodation.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action (i.e., voluntary resignation) Husband’s communications do not establish that Khristina herself resigned; no evidence she authorized resignation; jury could find she did not resign HOTI contends Mr. Larison effectively resigned on Khristina’s behalf and processed a voluntary separation Court: factual dispute existed as to whether resignation occurred, but resolving other elements was dispositive for summary judgment in HOTI’s favor
Whether Khristina was a "disabled" person under KRS 344 Stroke substantially limited major life activities (speech, mobility); incapacitated months — qualifies as disability HOTI emphasized full recovery and argued temporary impairment does not meet KRS 344 disability standard Court: under Kentucky law and factors used historically, held she qualified as disabled (duration and severity supported disability)
Whether plaintiff was otherwise qualified to perform essential functions (with/without reasonable accommodation) She requested leave and could have been accommodated or reinstated upon recovery HOTI argued she was unable to perform essential CNA functions for an extended period (nearly a year) and could not assure a return to required schedule Court: she could not perform essential functions during the relevant period and offered no evidence she could with reasonable accommodation — failure on this prima facie element defeats discrimination claim
Whether HOTI failed to provide a reasonable accommodation (FMLA leave as accommodation) Request for medical leave (via husband) amounted to accommodation request HOTI argued requested leave lacked a definite return date and exceeded reasonable duration for accommodation; FMLA distinct and not before the court Court: request did not provide an estimated return date or assurance plaintiff could resume essential duties in near future; therefore not a legally-required reasonable accommodation under KRS 344; summary judgment affirmed

Key Cases Cited

  • Williams v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 184 S.W.3d 492 (Ky. 2005) (explains direct-evidence and McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting frameworks for discrimination claims)
  • Wymer v. JH Properties, Inc., 50 S.W.3d 195 (Ky. 2001) (employee unable to perform essential functions cannot prevail on discrimination claim)
  • Azzam v. Baptist Healthcare Affiliates, Inc., 855 F.Supp.2d 653 (W.D. Ky. 2012) (discusses Kentucky interpretation of disability after federal ADA amendments)
  • Robert v. Board of County Comm'rs of Brown County, Kans., 691 F.3d 1211 (10th Cir. 2012) (limits on leave-as-accommodation: must provide an estimated return date and assurance of near-future ability to perform essential duties)
  • Seeger v. Cincinnati Bell Telephone Co., LLC, 681 F.3d 274 (6th Cir. 2012) (distinguishes FMLA entitlement/interference and retaliation theories)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: Larison v. Home of the Innocents
Court Name: Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Date Published: May 11, 2018
Citations: 551 S.W.3d 36; NO. 2016-CA-001910-MR
Docket Number: NO. 2016-CA-001910-MR
Court Abbreviation: Ky. Ct. App.
Log In
    Larison v. Home of the Innocents, 551 S.W.3d 36