Musil v. Gerken Materials, Inc.
2020 Ohio 3548
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Lawrence Musil, a Gerken Materials laborer since 2008, was punched by a co-worker on Oct. 13, 2017, and later diagnosed with PTSD.
- Musil took FMLA/medical leave beginning Nov. 10, 2017; his leave was extended multiple times and he submitted a physician’s note saying he could not return until March 7, 2018.
- Gerken terminated Musil on Feb. 2, 2018 for inability to return to work, stating he could be considered for future openings if released.
- Musil sued (filed June 18, 2018) for disability discrimination under R.C. 4112.02 and retaliation under R.C. 4112.02(I); other claims (negligent retention, assault/battery) are not at issue on appeal.
- Trial court granted summary judgment to Gerken on both discrimination and retaliation claims and denied Musil’s motion for leave to amend (filed after Gerken’s summary-judgment motion).
- On appeal, the Sixth District affirmed: Musil failed to show he could perform essential job functions with a reasonable accommodation and his request for medical leave was not a protected activity for purposes of R.C. 4112.02(I); the denial of leave to amend was not an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Musil established he was "qualified" (could perform essential job functions) with a reasonable accommodation for disability-discrimination purposes | Musil: a short (e.g., 4-week) extension of medical leave was a reasonable accommodation and he could return after that; Gerken’s policy requiring full recovery is inflexible | Gerken: Musil offered no competent evidence he could perform essential functions after the extension; he remained unable to return as of deposition | Court: Musil failed the third element (no competent evidence he could safely and substantially perform essential functions); summary judgment for Gerken affirmed |
| Whether requesting medical leave is a protected activity under R.C. 4112.02(I) (retaliation) | Musil: requesting a reasonable accommodation (medical leave) is protected activity for retaliation claim | Gerken: requesting leave is not opposition to discrimination nor participation in a proceeding; thus not protected under the statute | Court: Requesting medical leave is not a protected activity under R.C. 4112.02(I); retaliation claim fails (and Musil offered no evidence of pretext) |
| Whether trial court abused its discretion by denying leave to amend the complaint after Gerken moved for summary judgment | Musil: leave to amend was timely enough to pursue claims revealed in discovery and discovery deadline had not passed | Gerken: amendment, filed after its summary-judgment motion, would prejudice it and require more discovery and delay | Court: Denial was not an abuse of discretion — motion was untimely, raised the "spectre of prejudice," and Musil offered no explanation for delay |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (framework for burden-shifting in discrimination cases)
- Texas Dep’t of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (plaintiff must show employer’s proffered reason was pretext)
- Columbus Civ. Serv. Comm. v. McGlone, 697 N.E.2d 204 (Ohio standard for prima facie disability-discrimination elements)
- Greer-Burger v. Temesi, 879 N.E.2d 174 (Ohio discussion of burden-shifting in employment cases)
- Matasy v. Youngstown Ohio Hosp. Co., LLC, 95 N.E.3d 744 (Ohio appellate treatment of medical-leave/accommodation evidence)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 671 N.E.2d 241 (standard for appellate review of summary judgment)
- Rorrer v. City of Stow, 743 F.3d 1025 (6th Cir. on what constitutes protected activity in ADA retaliation context)
- Henderson v. Ardco, Inc., 247 F.3d 645 (6th Cir. discussion of employer policies requiring full recovery)