Smith v. Cuyahoga County
1:21-cv-00160
| N.D. Ohio | Jan 3, 2022Background
- Paul H. Smith, an African American longtime Cuyahoga County Sewer Division employee, was promoted to Leadman—a working supervisor role that routinely required work across multiple crews (Camera Truck, construction, vacuum, residential service).
- In late 2018 Smith developed severe respiratory problems diagnosed as occupational asthma and filed workers’ compensation MEDCO-14 forms; the Bureau allowed his temporary total disability claims. The MEDCO-14s consistently indicated he could not return to his former position even with restrictions (no exposure to dust, fumes, silica, asbestos, chemicals).
- Smith submitted ADA accommodation requests asking to avoid exposure to irritants and provided a treating physician’s note clearing him to return with restrictions; the County arranged an independent medical exam (Dr. Garcia) that concluded he was not fit to return to the Leadman position because Leadman duties routinely entail exposure to the listed irritants.
- The County placed Smith on leave, put his ADA request “on hold” in light of the IME, and disability-separated him under County policy in December 2019; Smith later sought reinstatement but did not produce medical evidence showing he could perform essential Leadman functions without prohibited exposures.
- Smith sued alleging disability discrimination (failure to accommodate, disparate treatment, retaliation) under the ADA and race discrimination, identifying white Leadman Ted Choukalas as a comparator; the County moved for summary judgment.
- The court granted summary judgment for the County, holding Smith was not a "qualified individual" under the ADA (could not perform essential Leadman duties even with accommodations) and that Choukalas was not similarly situated for the race claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Smith was a "qualified individual" under the ADA able to perform essential Leadman functions with reasonable accommodation | Smith argued he could return to work with accommodations and cited his treating physician’s return-to-work letter | County relied on multiple MEDCO-14 disability forms and the IME finding Smith could not avoid exposure to irritants inherent in Leadman duties | Court held Smith was not qualified; medical evidence showed he could not perform essential duties even with accommodation |
| Failure to accommodate under the ADA | Smith claimed County failed to provide reasonable accommodations and put his request on hold | County said no reasonable accommodation could eliminate routine exposure to dust/chemicals required by Leadman work | Court held failure-to-accommodate claim failed because Smith was not a qualified individual |
| ADA retaliation (for requesting accommodation) | Smith asserted adverse action resulted from his ADA requests | County contended removal/separation resulted from medical findings showing unfitness for duty | Court disposed of retaliation claim because Smith could not show he was qualified to begin with and medical records justified County action |
| Race discrimination (comparative treatment) | Smith identified white Leadman Ted Choukalas as similarly situated and better treated | County showed Choukalas’s workers’ comp claim was not allowed and an IME found Choukalas fit for duty—facts differing from Smith’s situation | Court held Choukalas was not similarly situated; race-discrimination claim failed |
Key Cases Cited
- Cleveland v. Policy Mgmt. Sys. Corp., 526 U.S. 795 (1999) (plaintiff must reconcile apparent contradictions between disability-benefit findings and ADA claims)
- Macy v. Hopkins Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 484 F.3d 357 (6th Cir. 2007) (definition and limits of a "qualified individual" under the ADA)
- Horn v. Knight Facilities Mgmt.-GM, Inc., [citation="556 F. App'x 452"] (6th Cir. 2014) (medical restriction against exposure to workplace irritants can establish lack of ADA qualification)
- Johnson v. Ohio Dep't of Pub. Safety, 942 F.3d 329 (6th Cir. 2019) (similarly situated standard in discrimination claims)
- Gragg v. Somerset Tech. Coll., 373 F.3d 763 (6th Cir. 2004) (framework for comparing similarly situated employees)