Michael Fisher v. Nissan N.A., Inc.
951 F.3d 409
| 6th Cir. | 2020Background
- Fisher worked at Nissan from 2003 to 2017 as a production technician with a strong performance history until he developed severe kidney disease and received a kidney transplant in August 2016.
- Post-transplant, antirejection medication caused severe fatigue and other symptoms; his doctor recommended gradual return and additional breaks and later cleared him to return with requests for bathroom breaks.
- Nissan first moved Fisher to a different rotation (Closures), then back to his old rotation (Fits); Fisher found the work physically difficult and repeatedly requested accommodations (extra breaks, half-time schedule, or reassignment to inspection/final-fit positions).
- Between December 2016 and February 2017 Fisher accumulated attendance warnings for absences and leaving early (which he attributes to his medical condition); after a final written warning on February 3, he left and was later terminated for absenteeism.
- Fisher sued under the ADA and Tennessee law (including an IIED claim); the district court granted Nissan summary judgment on all claims. The Sixth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part, remanding the ADA accommodation and interactive-process claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a failure-to-accommodate claim is analyzed under the ADA’s direct- or indirect-evidence framework | Fisher’s claim is a straightforward failure-to-accommodate and thus constitutes direct evidence of discrimination | Nissan urged application of the indirect/McDonnell Douglas framework | Court held ADA failure-to-accommodate claims invoke the direct-evidence framework (following Kleiber), so plaintiff’s version needs to be credited to show discrimination |
| Whether Fisher was an "otherwise qualified" employee despite attendance issues | Absences were caused by the disability and could have been cured by reasonable accommodations (e.g., reassignment, breaks, part-time) | Nissan argued absenteeism rendered Fisher unqualified for the job | Court held absences tied to disability do not automatically make plaintiff unqualified; whether accommodation could cure absences is a triable issue |
| Whether specific accommodation requests (transfer to inspection/final-fit; extra breaks; temporary part-time) were reasonable | Fisher identified vacant inspection/final-fit positions and sought reassignment or help identifying vacancies | Nissan contended some options (offline position) were unavailable or barred by seniority and that prior attempts at accommodation failed | Court found triable issues: requests to inspect/check bolts or move to final-fit could be reasonable and Nissan failed to show undue hardship; summary judgment inappropriate on failure-to-accommodate claim |
| Whether Nissan engaged in the ADA interactive process in good faith | Fisher says he repeatedly asked for help and Nissan did not meaningfully investigate or propose counter-accommodations after late-2016 requests | Nissan relied on prior accommodation efforts (transfers, extended leave) and disciplinary process | Court held Nissan participated in the interactive process initially but, given renewed requests from December–February and lack of evidence Nissan showed undue hardship or proposed alternatives, a factfinder could find Nissan failed to engage in good faith; summary judgment reversed on this claim |
| Procedural & supplemental claims: discovery reopening and IIED | Fisher sought reopening of discovery to subpoena a hiring agency; alleged IIED based on Nissan’s conduct | Nissan opposed additional discovery; argued conduct did not meet extreme-outrageous standard and no serious mental injury shown | Court affirmed denial to reopen discovery (no abuse of discretion) and affirmed summary judgment on IIED (Tennessee law requires more than insulting/discriminatory conduct and proof of serious mental injury) |
Key Cases Cited
- Kleiber v. Honda of Am. Mfg., 485 F.3d 862 (6th Cir. 2007) (establishes that ADA failure-to-accommodate claims provide direct evidence of discrimination)
- EEOC v. Dolgencorp, LLC, 899 F.3d 428 (6th Cir. 2018) (employer’s refusal to accommodate can render performance-related discharge discriminatory)
- Hostettler v. Coll. of Wooster, 895 F.3d 844 (6th Cir. 2018) (discusses ADA amendments and direct-evidence framework)
- U.S. Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391 (U.S. 2002) (framework for evaluating whether an accommodation is reasonable in the run of cases and when seniority rules may prevail)
- Burns v. Coca-Cola Enters. Inc., 222 F.3d 247 (6th Cir. 2000) (duty to assist employee in identifying vacant positions and that reassignment can be a reasonable accommodation)
- Jakubowski v. Christ Hosp., Inc., 627 F.3d 195 (6th Cir. 2010) (employer must show undue hardship once a reasonable accommodation is proposed)
- Rorrer v. City of Stow, 743 F.3d 1025 (6th Cir. 2014) (discusses when an employee makes a prima facie showing of a reasonable accommodation request)
- Brenneman v. MedCentral Health Sys., 366 F.3d 412 (6th Cir. 2004) (absenteeism may render an employee unqualified when absences are not related to disability)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (standard for summary judgment review)