610 F. App'x 519
6th Cir.2015Background
- Banks worked as an assembler at Bosch (2004–2012); she suffered chronic migraines and received intermittent FMLA leave approval on May 29, 2012.
- Her treating physician sent recommendations including short rest time (15–30 minutes), permission to leave if medication failed, and avoidance of AccroLube and toluene exposure.
- Banks filed EEOC and union grievances alleging failure to accommodate and discrimination; Bosch recoded some leave and maintained its rolling 12‑month FMLA calculation, showing Banks had exceeded allotted FMLA hours.
- Bosch placed Banks on paid suspension and scheduled two independent medical exams (IMEs); Banks did not attend the IMEs and was terminated effective August 3, 2012 for attendance after Bosch concluded she had exhausted FMLA and failed to provide documentation.
- District court granted summary judgment to Bosch on Banks’s FMLA interference and retaliation claims and on KCRA disability discrimination (failure to accommodate) and retaliation claims; Sixth Circuit affirmed in all respects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FMLA interference (entitlement) — did Bosch deny FMLA benefits? | Banks argues Bosch miscoded many FMLA hours and thus interfered with her entitlement. | Bosch contends Banks received her full FMLA allotment (plus extra hours) under its rolling‑12 calculation; any miscoding caused no prejudice. | Held: No interference — Banks received all substantive FMLA benefits and showed no prejudice from any technical misdesignation. |
| FMLA retaliation — was termination retaliation for FMLA use? | Banks contends temporal proximity and miscoding show retaliatory animus. | Bosch says termination was for attendance/tardies, suspension and IMEs were legitimate nondiscriminatory steps; honest‑belief rule applies. | Held: No retaliation — Bosch offered legitimate reasons and Banks failed to show pretext. |
| KCRA disability discrimination / failure to accommodate — was requested accommodation reasonable? | Banks (via doctor) sought ability to leave promptly during episodes and avoidance of certain chemicals. | Bosch argues the leave‑as‑needed request lacked objective limits, undermining essential attendance requirement and imposing undue hardship. | Held: No discrimination — accommodation allowing unfettered leaving was unreasonable as a matter of law; Banks not a qualified individual. |
| KCRA retaliation — did Bosch retaliate for protected complaints (EEOC/ grievances)? | Banks points to EEOC filing and subsequent discipline/termination. | Bosch points to attendance history, offered IMEs and paid suspension; Bosch reasonably believed termination was warranted. | Held: No KCRA retaliation — plaintiff failed to show Bosch's reasons were pretextual; honest‑belief rule supports employer. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ragsdale v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc., 535 U.S. 81 (Sup. Ct.) (employee must show prejudice from employer's FMLA designation errors)
- Killian v. Yorozu Auto. Tenn., Inc., 454 F.3d 549 (6th Cir.) (distinguishes FMLA interference and retaliation theories)
- Edgar v. JAC Products, Inc., 443 F.3d 501 (6th Cir.) (FMLA is not strict liability; plaintiff must show harm)
- Kleiber v. Honda of America Mfg., Inc., 485 F.3d 862 (6th Cir.) (failure‑to‑accommodate is direct evidence; framework for qualified individual analysis)
- Gantt v. Wilson Sporting Goods Co., 143 F.3d 1042 (6th Cir.) (inability to satisfy attendance requirements may preclude ADA qualification)
- Smith v. Chrysler Corp., 155 F.3d 799 (6th Cir.) (honest‑belief rule: employer's reasonable belief in proffered reason can defeat pretext)
- Kennedy v. Superior Printing Co., 215 F.3d 650 (6th Cir.) (employer may require medical examination as part of reasonable‑accommodation process)