129 F.4th 944
6th Cir.2025Background
- Larry Smith worked for over 30 years for Newport Utilities, rising to bucket foreman, a demanding job requiring extensive and unpredictable overtime to maintain electric lines.
- Smith developed unpredictable "stare seizures," which became apparent after two workplace incidents—one while driving a truck and another collapse on the job, both raising safety concerns.
- Medical evaluations recommended strict work-hour limits and a prohibition on driving or operating equipment for several months, later modified to a 40-hour workweek and no standby duty.
- Newport Utilities determined it could not accommodate these restrictions because extended hours and standby work were essential job functions.
- Smith was given the option to retire or be terminated; he chose retirement and then sued under the ADA, claiming failure to accommodate his disability.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Newport Utilities, concluding Smith posed a direct threat and could not be reasonably accommodated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Smith posed a direct threat | Smith did not present significant safety risk with limits | Seizures created significant, unpredictable safety risks | Smith was a direct threat to himself and others in the foreman role |
| Whether accommodations were reasonable | Modified schedule or transfer could remove direct threat | Essential functions (overtime/standby) cannot be eliminated | Overtime/standby are essential; no feasible alternative positions |
| Transfer to another role | He could perform other open jobs with minor adjustments | No vacancies for which Smith was qualified (skills/criteria) | Smith not qualified for any open positions; no duty to create roles |
| Failure to engage in interactive process | Newport failed to discuss options for accommodation | No reasonable accommodation possible—rendered moot | Employer not liable absent viable accommodation proposal |
Key Cases Cited
- Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Echazabal, 536 U.S. 73 (direct threat can be an affirmative defense under the ADA)
- Michael v. City of Troy Police Dep’t, 808 F.3d 304 (direct threat analysis under the ADA and summary judgment standards)
- Fisher v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., 951 F.3d 409 (essential job functions and reasonable accommodation under the ADA)
- Ford Motor Co., 782 F.3d 753 (employer's judgment in determining essential job functions)
- Kleiber v. Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc., 485 F.3d 862 (employee’s burden regarding reassignment requests and open positions)