Robert Hurtt v. International Services, Inc., 627 F. App'x 414

Hurtt, disabled employee, returned to ISI in 2011 with revised pay terms including a 12% commission, a $70,000 annual draw, prepaid travel benefits, and per diem, plus a four-day work week proposal.
Dispute over the draw: Hurtt contends it was guaranteed/forgivable; ISI contends it was a recoverable draw against commissions that could be recouped.
Hurtt experienced heavy travel, sleep deprivation, and medical issues; doctors recommended sleep time and possible FMLA leave, which ISI downplayed.
In March 2012 Hurtt’s doctor documented hypertension and fatigue; Hurtt requested accommodations and time off; ISI’s response was contested and allegedly unsupportive.
In September 2012 Hurtt’s status shifted to commission-only, prepaid travel was terminated, the draw was revoked retroactively, and Hurtt incurred an immediate debt to ISI; Hurtt ceased reporting to work and later through counsel notified ISI would not return.
Hurtt filed suit alleging disability discrimination (ADA/PWDCRA), retaliation (ADA/PWDCRA), and FMLA interference/retaliation; ISI sought summary judgment which district court granted, prompting appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Disability discrimination via constructive discharge	Hurtt suffered adverse action by creating intolerable conditions to force quitting.	No adverse action; Hurtt voluntarily quit due to noncompliance with schedule.	Constructive discharge issue raises material fact; reversal warranted
Retaliation under the ADA and PWDCRA	Requests for accommodation and use of FMLA leave were protected acts; adverse actions followed.	No prima facie retaliation due to lack of adverse action or protected activity.	Sufficient evidence of protected activity and adverse action; summary judgment improper
FMLA interference	ISI discouraged use of FMLA by terminating draw and benefits after leave request.	No explicit denial of FMLA rights; interference requires entitlements denial.	Triable issue whether ISI interfered with FMLA rights
FMLA retaliation	Actions following FMLA request constitute retaliation for taking leave.	No causal link established between protected activity and adverse action.	Evidence supports potential retaliation; remand appropriate

Hedrick v. W. Reserve Care Sys., 355 F.3d 444 (6th Cir. 2004) (establishing indirect evidence prima facie case under ADA)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (Supreme Court 1973) (burden-shifting framework)
Regan v. Faurecia Auto. Seating, Inc., 679 F.3d 475 (6th Cir. 2012) (constructive discharge here limited; context-specific)
Talley v. Family Dollar Stores of Ohio, Inc., 542 F.3d 1099 (6th Cir. 2008) (constructive discharge viability; factors)
Saroli v. Automation & Modular Components, Inc., 405 F.3d 446 (6th Cir. 2005) (recognition of constructive discharge as adverse action)
Smith v. Henderson, 376 F.3d 529 (6th Cir. 2004) (constructive discharge analysis)
Logan v. Denny’s, Inc., 259 F.3d 558 (6th Cir. 2001) (constructive discharge as adverse action)
A.C. ex rel. J.C. v. Shelby Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 711 F.3d 687 (6th Cir. 2013) (protected activity including accommodation requests)
Shelby Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. Barnett, 711 F.3d 698 (6th Cir. 2013) (retaliation framework and protected activity)
Walton v. Ford Motor Co., 424 F.3d 481 (6th Cir. 2005) (FMLA interference prima facie elements)
Edgar v. JAC Products, Inc., 443 F.3d 501 (6th Cir. 2006) (FMLA entitlement analysis)
Stubl v. T.A. Sys., Inc., 984 F. Supp. 1075 (E.D. Mich. 1997) (FMLA retaliation framework)