Michael Booth v. Nissan N. Am., Inc.
927 F.3d 387
6th Cir.2019Background
- Booth injured his neck in 2004; his physician imposed permanent work restrictions (e.g., limited overhead work and neck flexion) but he continued working on Nissan’s assembly line for years.
- In late 2015 Booth requested a transfer to a material-handling ("preferred") position; Nissan denied the transfer because it concluded his restrictions conflicted with the job’s essential functions.
- Around the same time Nissan restructured the door assembly line from two tasks to four; Nissan told Booth the added tasks might conflict with his restrictions and urged him to see a physician to reassess them.
- Booth’s physician thereafter revised the restrictions (removed neck-flex restriction and limited overhead/reaching only to Booth’s left side), and Nissan then permitted Booth to perform the four-job position; Booth remained employed.
- Booth filed an EEOC/state charge in December 2016 and sued in federal court for disability discrimination and failure to accommodate under the ADA; the district court granted summary judgment for Nissan.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness and merits of disability-discrimination claim for denied transfer | Booth contends Nissan denied his transfer because of his work restrictions, amounting to ADA discrimination | Nissan says denial occurred in Nov 2015 (300-day filing clock) and Booth is not disabled under the ADA | Claim untimely: denial was final in Nov 2015; additionally Booth failed to show he was disabled under the ADA |
| Failure-to-accommodate based on pressure to change restrictions and line restructuring | Booth contends Nissan pressured him to remove/modify restrictions instead of accommodating him during reconfiguration | Nissan contends it kept Booth in his two-job role while issues were resolved, asked for medical reevaluation, and ultimately accommodated once doctor modified restrictions | Claim fails on the merits: Booth did not prove he is disabled under the ADA and Nissan did not fail to accommodate—Nissan maintained his position and later cleared him after medical reassessment |
Key Cases Cited
- Auburn Sales, Inc. v. Cypros Trading & Shipping, Inc., 898 F.3d 710 (6th Cir. 2018) (standard of review on summary judgment)
- Henschel v. Clare Cty. Rd. Comm'n, 737 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 2013) (drawing inferences for nonmoving party at summary judgment)
- McKay v. Toyota Motor Mfg., U.S.A., Inc., 110 F.3d 369 (6th Cir. 1997) (work restrictions alone do not automatically establish disability)
- Mahon v. Crowell, 295 F.3d 585 (6th Cir. 2002) (inability to perform a specific job/task does not alone show disability)
- Whitfield v. Tennessee, 639 F.3d 253 (6th Cir. 2011) (elements of prima facie ADA discrimination claim)
- Ferrari v. Ford Motor Co., 826 F.3d 885 (6th Cir. 2016) ("regarded as" disability requires perceiving impairment as substantially limiting work)
- Kleiber v. Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc., 485 F.3d 862 (6th Cir. 2007) (failure-to-accommodate is direct evidence of discrimination)
- E.E.O.C. v. Dolgencorp, LLC, 899 F.3d 428 (6th Cir. 2018) (failure to provide reasonable accommodation constitutes direct evidence of discrimination)