Malinda Cooley v. E. Tenn. Human Resource Agency
17-5355
| 6th Cir. | Dec 22, 2017Background
- Cooley was an ETHRA 16-passenger van driver required to lift up to 50 lbs and hold a CDL; DOT rules required a fitness‑for‑duty exam by a certified medical examiner after a job‑impairing injury.
- She suffered worsening back problems after a February 2015 fall, took 12 weeks of FMLA leave for back surgery, and her FMLA leave expired August 12, 2015.
- Her personal physician cleared her on August 24, 2015, with a restriction: no pushing/pulling/lifting over 30 lbs until October 5, 2015; she faxed ETHRA on August 25 requesting accommodation to avoid manual wheelchairs until October 5.
- ETHRA required a DOT Certified Medical Examiner exam; Dr. McElligott (DOT‑certified) examined Cooley August 27, she admitted using hydrocodone, and he found her unfit for duty; ETHRA’s executive director then terminated her for failing the fitness‑for‑duty test.
- Cooley sued for ADA failure to accommodate and FMLA interference/retaliation; the district court granted ETHRA summary judgment on both claims, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cooley was a "qualified individual" under the ADA with her requested restriction (no manual wheelchair handling until Oct 5) | Cooley: the requested restriction was a reasonable accommodation that would allow her to perform essential functions. | ETHRA: the restriction did not address the actual reason she failed the DOT exam (narcotic use), so it would not enable her to pass the fitness exam. | Held: Accommodation would not cure the basis for the failed DOT exam (hydrocodone); Cooley was not a qualified individual. |
| Whether additional unpaid leave was a reasonable ADA accommodation | Cooley: even if not requested, interactive process could have produced additional unpaid leave enabling return to work. | ETHRA: Cooley never requested unpaid leave, testified she could not afford more unpaid leave, and gave no credible end date for leave. | Held: Additional leave was not reasonable—Cooley disclaimed it as an option and provided no certain/credible return date. |
| Whether temporal proximity established FMLA retaliation causation | Cooley: termination two weeks after FMLA leave and on the day she attempted to return shows causation. | ETHRA: termination was because she could not return to work at end of FMLA leave (legitimate reason). | Held: Timing sufficed for prima facie causation, but employer articulated legitimate nondiscriminatory reason. |
| Whether ETHRA's stated reason was pretext for FMLA retaliation | Cooley: points to (1) decision‑maker not consulting supervisor, (2) denial of 90 days unpaid leave, (3) failure to investigate examiner’s refusal, (4) alleged shifting reasons. | ETHRA: decision based on certified examiner’s objective medical opinion; no evidence decision‑maker knew of FMLA status; Cooley never applied for unpaid leave; added insubordination reason arose after separation notice. | Held: None of Cooley’s indicators show pretext; reliance on DOT examiner was reasonable; no triable issue of pretext. |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. AT&T Mobility Servs., LLC, 847 F.3d 384 (6th Cir. 2017) (summary judgment standard and ADA accommodation analysis)
- E.E.O.C. v. Ford Motor Co., 782 F.3d 753 (6th Cir. 2015) (definition of qualified individual and interactive process principles)
- Cehrs v. Ne. Ohio Alzheimer’s Research Ctr., 155 F.3d 775 (6th Cir. 1998) (when additional leave may be a reasonable accommodation)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden‑shifting framework for circumstantial discrimination/retaliation claims)
- Reid v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 790 F.2d 453 (6th Cir. 1986) (affidavit cannot create factual issue that contradicts prior deposition testimony)
- Michael v. City of Troy Police Dep’t, 808 F.3d 304 (6th Cir. 2015) (employer may rely on an objectively reasonable medical opinion when making employment decisions)