Morgan v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, 2014-Ohio-636

Background

Morgan was hired by Wells Fargo in Jan 2011 to work in its Roanoke call center, which enforces a mandatory attendance policy tied to a 40‑hour attendance account; hitting -41 or below triggers termination.
Over a ten‑week period Morgan accrued many unscheduled absences that reduced her attendance balance to -45 after missing consecutive days at the end of April/early May 2011.
On May 3–4 her supervisor sought and obtained Human Resources approval to terminate for policy violation; during the termination call Morgan disclosed she was seeking treatment for alcoholism.
HR rescinded the termination, granted leave for treatment, excused her May–July absences as medical leave, and allowed Morgan to seek excusal for earlier absences by contacting the Accommodations team.
Morgan failed to follow up with Accommodations (and later admitted she had not seen a doctor for the April dates); Wells Fargo reinstated termination on August 10, 2011 for remaining unexcused absences.
Morgan sued under the ADA alleging disability discrimination and retaliation; Wells Fargo moved for summary judgment on the ground the termination rested on a legitimate, non‑discriminatory attendance‑policy violation.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Morgan was terminated because of disability in violation of the ADA	Morgan argues Wells Fargo terminated her due to alcoholism and treated her differently than similarly situated employees	Wells Fargo says it terminated Morgan for violating its mandatory attendance policy (legitimate, non‑discriminatory reason)	Court granted summary judgment for Wells Fargo — plaintiff failed to show the proffered reason was pretextual
Whether Wells Fargo failed to accommodate or retroactively excuse absences under the ADA	Morgan contends she sought accommodation/leave and was discriminated by not having prior absences excused	Wells Fargo contends it granted prospective leave once informed and an employer need not retroactively accommodate; Morgan did not follow Accommodations team direction	Court refused to allow late amendment and held employer need not provide retroactive accommodation; Morgan did not pursue available process
Whether the timing of termination supports inference of discrimination/retaliation	Morgan points to temporal proximity between disclosure and termination as evidence of pretext/retaliation	Wells Fargo points to uncontradicted attendance records and warnings showing independent legitimate reason	Court found timing alone insufficient to overcome undisputed legitimate reason; no pretext shown
Whether Morgan established a prima facie retaliation claim under McDonnell Douglas	Morgan claims retaliation for requesting accommodation	Wells Fargo argues termination was for attendance violations, not retaliation, and that any accommodation request was granted prospectively	Court assumed arguendo a prima facie case but held Morgan could not prove pretext; summary judgment for Wells Fargo

Key Cases Cited

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (framework for proving intentional discrimination under the ADA)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden‑shifting and nonmoving party's duty to show genuine dispute)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard and requirement that nonmoving party show more than a scintilla of evidence)
Lee v. York County Sch. Div., 484 F.3d 687 (4th Cir. 2007) (viewing facts in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
Farrell v. Butler Univ., 421 F.3d 609 (7th Cir. 2005) (definition of pretext as a dishonest explanation)
Moman v. Hilti, Inc., 108 F.3d 1319 (10th Cir. 1997) (types of weaknesses in employer's explanation that show pretext)
White v. W.R. Winslow Mem'l Home, Inc., 211 F.3d 1266 (4th Cir. 2000) (pretext and discrimination analysis)
Dugan v. Albemarle County Sch. Bd., 293 F.3d 716 (4th Cir. 2002) (timing alone insufficient to establish discrimination when legitimate reasons are unrebutted)
Office of Senate Sergeant at Arms v. Office of Senate Fair Employment Practices, 95 F.3d 1102 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (ADA does not require retroactive accommodation or a "fresh start")
Kothe v. Cont'l Teves, Inc., 461 F. Supp. 2d 466 (timing by itself does not overcome an unrebutted legitimate reason for adverse action)