Melissa Brumley v. United Parcel Serv.
909 F.3d 834
| 6th Cir. | 2018Background
- Melissa Brumley, a UPS sorter and occasional temporary driver, injured her back unloading packages in Dec. 2015 and received workers’ compensation and a Temporary Alternative Work assignment.
- After leave, Dr. Klekamp issued permanent restrictions (no lifting over 30 lbs; no driving) and a note saying she could return to local sort; her supervisor sent her home because UPS’s sorter/driver roles sometimes require lifting up to 70 lbs.
- Brumley (a Teamsters member) filed grievances and UPS initiated the ADA interactive process on Aug. 18, 2016, requesting medical forms; Brumley delayed but submitted forms on Sept. 14.
- UPS scheduled an interactive-process meeting for Oct. 11; at that meeting Brumley said she wanted to stop the process and asked her doctor to remove the restrictions; Dr. Klekamp removed them on Oct. 27 and she returned to work without restrictions; UPS closed the process on Nov. 7.
- Brumley sued UPS under the ADA (failure to accommodate and discrimination) and state laws for the brief period she was kept off work; the district court granted summary judgment to UPS and denied her Rule 59 motion; the Sixth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether UPS failed to provide a reasonable accommodation under the ADA | Brumley says UPS should have let her work local sort immediately because her doctor’s note allowed local sort | UPS says it had no obligation to grant an on-the-spot accommodation and properly proceeded with the interactive process | Court held UPS did not fail to accommodate; employer may engage in interactive process before identifying accommodations |
| Whether Brumley voluntarily abandoned the interactive process or was coerced | Brumley contends hub manager’s statement and practices coerced her into ending the process and removing restrictions | UPS points to Brumley’s admissions that she knew accommodations were possible and that she chose to have restrictions lifted | Court held evidence did not create a genuine dispute; Brumley voluntarily ended the process |
| Whether the district court abused discretion in denying Rule 59(e) relief based on Watford and newly discovered evidence | Brumley argued Watford supports an ADA-retaliation theory (grievances held in abeyance) and relied on a later episode where UPS allowed temporary restrictions | UPS and district court noted Brumley did not plead retaliation, presented no record evidence that grievances were held in abeyance, and the new medical evidence was not new or material | Court held district court did not abuse discretion; new arguments/evidence were untimely or irrelevant |
| Whether discovery should have been reopened after summary judgment | Brumley sought reopening in her Rule 59 motion based on alleged credibility issues and new facts | UPS argued the request was untimely and should have been made under Rule 56(d) before summary judgment ruling | Court held the request was too late; Rule 56(d) was the correct mechanism and denial was not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Kleiber v. Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc., 485 F.3d 862 (6th Cir. 2007) (interactive process duty and undue-hardship allocation once employer fails to accommodate)
- Gillis v. Miller, 845 F.3d 677 (6th Cir. 2017) (standard of review for summary judgment and construing facts favorably to nonmovant)
- Watford v. Jefferson Cty. Pub. Sch., 870 F.3d 448 (6th Cir. 2017) (holding that holding grievance in abeyance while EEOC charge pending may be actionable retaliation)
- Hedrick v. W. Reserve Care Sys., 355 F.3d 444 (6th Cir. 2004) (allocation of burden to employer to prove undue hardship after direct proof of failure to accommodate)
- Chevron Phillips Chem. Co. v. EEOC, 570 F.3d 606 (5th Cir. 2009) (employer’s obligation to engage in a meaningful interactive process)