Sper v. Judson Care Center, Inc.
29 F. Supp. 3d 1102
S.D. Ohio2014Background
- Plaintiff Ardella Sper, a registered charge nurse at Judson Care Center, diagnosed with trigeminal neuralgia (TN), worked night shifts and had her TN controlled on medication with few absences.
- After a narcotics-diversion review, Judson implemented strict narcotics documentation and cart-audit procedures; nurses were warned late entries would be scrutinized.
- Plaintiff had multiple disciplinary warnings, including a final written warning that one more infraction could lead to termination.
- On the night of Aug. 22–23, 2012, staff observed Sper impaired (slurred speech, staggering, incoherence) and discovered discrepancies and missing controlled pills from her drug cart; a hospital drug screen detected some prescribed medications but not all missing pills.
- Judson terminated Sper on Sept. 6, 2012 for violating its controlled-substance documentation policy. Sper sued under the ADA and OCRA (disparate treatment, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in interactive process) and for FMLA interference. Court considered motions for summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was discrimination "because of" disability (ADA/OCRA disparate treatment) | Sper: impairment was caused by TN/medication side effects; misconduct was disability-related, so firing is because of disability | Judson: terminated for job-related misconduct (narcotics documentation violations); misconduct related to job performance may be disciplined even if disability contributed | Court: Judgment for Judson — termination was for job-related misconduct related to disability, not "because of" disability; no direct evidence of disability-based firing |
| Whether Judson failed to provide reasonable accommodation or engage in interactive process | Sper: needed additional time off after incident to adjust medications; inability to request accommodation that night made the need obvious | Judson: Sper received occasional days off when requested; she never requested additional leave after the incident; employer not required to speculate or excuse misconduct as accommodation | Court: Judgment for Judson — Sper did not request a reasonable accommodation; employer need not excuse misconduct and interactive process not triggered |
| Whether Sper established circumstantial discrimination / pretext | Sper: claimed unequal enforcement and general noncompliance by nurses (70% compliance) | Judson: articulated legitimate reason (disciplinary history + narcotics violation); plaintiff identified no similarly situated non-disabled employee disciplined differently | Court: Judgment for Judson — no evidence of pretext or specific comparators; legitimate nondiscriminatory reason stands |
| Whether Judson interfered with FMLA rights | Sper: needed leave for serious health condition; was denied | Judson: Sper never provided notice or requested FMLA leave; termination was for legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons | Court: Judgment for Judson — Sper failed to give notice and termination unrelated to FMLA exercise |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- Matsushita Elec. Ind. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (nonmoving party must present more than metaphysical doubt at summary judgment)
- Brohm v. JH Prop., Inc., 149 F.3d 517 (6th Cir.) (employer may discharge for job-related misconduct even if caused by disability)
- Macy v. Hopkins County Sch. Bd. of Educ., 484 F.3d 357 (6th Cir.) (same principle regarding misconduct related to job performance)
- Gantt v. Wilson Sporting Goods Co., 143 F.3d 1042 (6th Cir.) (failure-to-accommodate / interactive process principles)
- Monette v. Elec. Data Sys. Corp., 90 F.3d 1173 (6th Cir.) (burden-shifting in disability cases)
- Lewis v. Humboldt Acquisition Corp., 681 F.3d 312 (6th Cir.) ("but-for" standard and subsequent clarifications in ADA context)