Robert Cady v. Remington Arms Co., 665 F. App'x 413

Robert Cady, a Remington engineer with prior back surgeries, was reassigned in April 2013 after conflicts on a project and began experiencing worsening back pain in May 2013.
On July 11, 2013, Cady told Remington HR (Norwood) he was seeing a surgeon, shared MRI results showing spinal stenosis and nerve compression, and was prescribed pain medication but no work restrictions.
Mid-July 2013, while on a work trip to Remington’s Minnesota plant, Cady was instructed to assemble Creform work stations; he expressed concerns to supervisors about climbing in/out of a truck, standing on concrete, sun sensitivity from medication, and asked to “mix it up” rather than do the physical work exclusively.
Supervisors concluded Cady would be unable to perform the physical labor, recalled him to Kentucky, and terminated him days later for "performance issues." Cady sued under the ADA (failure to accommodate and wrongful discharge) and for breach of a severance agreement.
The district court granted summary judgment to Remington on ADA and contract claims, finding no notice or accommodation request and that Remington had cause; the Sixth Circuit reversed as to the ADA and wrongful discharge only, remanding for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Remington had notice Cady was disabled	Cady told HR about prior surgeries, saw a doctor, shared MRI results, and complained about limitations on the trip	Remington says remarks were vague concerns amid other complaints and did not put them on notice of a disability	Reversed: a jury could find Cady gave sufficient notice (MRI, surgeries, mid-trip complaints)
Whether Cady requested a reasonable accommodation	Cady identified specific limitations (climbing, long standing) and asked to "mix it up" his tasks	Remington says the request was not specific enough to trigger interactive process	Reversed: request was specific enough to require employer inquiry about accommodations
Whether termination was wrongful/discriminatory under ADA	Cady contends he was fired because his disability prevented required physical work	Remington asserts termination was for longstanding performance and interpersonal problems	Reversed: disputed facts permit a reasonable jury to find Remington’s non-discriminatory explanation was pretextual
Whether summary judgment on severance claim was proper	Cady argues entitlement to severance depends on whether discharge violated ADA	Remington treated discharge as for cause, negating severance	Reversed/Remanded: severance issues turn on ADA outcome, so summary judgment vacated

Kleiber v. Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc., 485 F.3d 862 (6th Cir. 2007) (elements and interactive-process obligations for ADA accommodation claims)
Gantt v. Wilson Sporting Goods Co., 143 F.3d 1042 (6th Cir. 1998) (employee must notify and request accommodation; employer not required to speculate)
Hammon v. DHL Airways, Inc., 165 F.3d 441 (6th Cir. 1999) (employer must know or should know of disability to support ADA claim)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (Supreme Court 1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
Wexler v. White's Fine Furniture, Inc., 317 F.3d 564 (6th Cir. 2003) (definition of direct evidence of discrimination)
Yazdian v. ConMed Endoscopic Tech., Inc., 793 F.3d 634 (6th Cir. 2015) (circumstances where employer’s stated reasons can be shown to be pretext)