Matasy v. Youngstown Ohio Hosp. Co.
2017 Ohio 7159
Oh. Ct. App. 7th Dist. Mahonin...2017Background
- Albert Matasy, a long‑time patient care associate, underwent multiple joint surgeries and took FMLA and non‑FMLA medical leaves in 2012; employer granted several extensions but denied his January 3, 2013 request to extend leave to February 11, 2013 and terminated him on January 16, 2013.
- Matasy sued for disability discrimination under Ohio law and the ADA, alleging the employer failed to provide the requested accommodation (extended leave) and failed to engage in the interactive process.
- The employer relied on Matasy’s deposition and medical records showing he could not perform the job’s essential functions (frequent lifting, kneeling, walking, patient transfers) at the time of termination and thereafter.
- Matasy pointed to a December 27, 2012 physician note projecting a February 11, 2013 return, his ADA questionnaire, prior returns to light duty after earlier surgeries, volunteer work and job‑search documents as evidence he could have returned with the requested accommodation.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for the employer, finding Matasy could not show he was qualified to perform essential job functions with the requested accommodation; Matasy appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Matasy was a "qualified individual" who could perform essential functions with the accommodation of extended leave | Matasy argued the December 27, 2012 medical note and his prior returns to light duty show he could return by Feb 11, 2013 with extended leave | Employer argued Matasy had no admissible evidence he could perform essential functions on Feb 11, 2013 and admitted he could not work at termination or at later deposition | Court held Matasy failed to raise a genuine issue: he did not show he could perform essential functions with the requested leave, so not a qualified individual |
| Whether the employer failed to engage in the interactive process in bad faith | Matasy asserted he never communicated with hospital staff between surgery and termination and thus employer did not assist in seeking accommodations | Employer showed it granted prior extensions, received leave requests, and that additional engagement was irrelevant because Matasy could not perform essential functions even with accommodation | Court held failure to accommodate, not mere failure to engage, is the basis of liability; but even if interactive process failure occurred, Matasy still lacked evidence he could perform job with accommodation |
| Admissibility and weight of the physician’s December 27, 2012 note as evidence of ability to return | Matasy relied on the note as a projection that he could return Feb 11, 2013 | Employer argued the note was speculative, not proper summary judgment evidence of actual ability on that date, and could not be incorporated into Matasy’s affidavit as the doctor’s opinion | Court treated the note as insufficient to create a genuine factual dispute absent proper affidavit or other admissible evidence showing Matasy could work on Feb 11, 2013 |
| Whether volunteer work, job applications, and ADA questionnaire create a triable issue on ability to perform essential functions | Matasy pointed to volunteer duties and job‑search documents, and an ADA questionnaire indicating ability to perform duties with or without accommodation | Employer and court noted volunteer duties were dissimilar and dates remote; the questionnaire was not sworn affidavit and did not state he could return on Feb 11, 2013 | Court held these materials did not create a genuine issue of material fact as to his ability to perform essential functions with the accommodation |
Key Cases Cited
- Byrd v. Smith, 110 Ohio St.3d 24 (Ohio 2006) (summary judgment standard and movant/nonmovant burdens)
- Hood v. Diamond Products, Inc., 74 Ohio St.3d 298 (Ohio 1996) (prima facie elements for termination‑based disability claim)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment burdens)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (genuine issue of material fact standard)
- DiCarlo v. Potter, 358 F.3d 408 (6th Cir. 2004) (qualification inquiry includes ability with reasonable accommodation)
- Cehrs v. Northeast Ohio Alzheimer's Research Ctr., 155 F.3d 775 (6th Cir. 1998) (plaintiff bears burden to prove qualified status)
- Basden v. Professional Transp., Inc., 714 F.3d 1034 (7th Cir. 2013) (failure to engage in interactive process does not avoid summary judgment absent proof plaintiff could perform job with accommodation)
- Sheng v. M & T Bank Corp., 848 F.3d 78 (2d Cir. 2017) (failure to engage is not independent ADA liability)
- Ramage v. Cent. Ohio Emergency Servs., Inc., 64 Ohio St.3d 97 (Ohio 1992) (expert testimony required when matter beyond lay comprehension)