40 F. Supp. 3d 869
E.D. Mich.2014Background
- Plaintiff David Spiteri, hired by Michigan Bell as an installation technician in 2001, later became a dispatcher in Southfield, Michigan.
- In 2009 his installation position was deemed unnecessary; he accepted a dispatcher role with an 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. shift, terminated in 2011 for job abandonment.
- Michigan Bell has an IDSC-based policy for medical accommodations requiring medical documentation and review by an accommodation specialist.
- In 2011, after returns from FMLA leave for back pain, plaintiff was offered extra breaks and a sit/stand desk to accommodate his condition; he could walk/stand but would need to “make up” the time at day’s end.
- Plaintiff accepted the breaks but refused to make up the additional accommodation time; discussions with attendance managers and a union representative occurred about the make-up requirement.
- Plaintiff was suspended for insubordination in September 2011 for failing to make up accommodation time and did not return to work; he was eventually terminated for job abandonment in December 2011.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff engaged in protected activity under FLSA | Plaintiff claimed he complained about unpaid accommodation time. | Plaintiff’s belief was not objectively reasonable; the time was not protected under FLSA. | Plaintiff failed to show protected activity; FLSA retaliation claim dismissed. |
| Whether the make-up time for accommodation breaks violated the FLSA | Additional breaks should be paid as part of the workday under FLSA. | Unpaid make-up time is permissible when breaks are discretionary and time is not spent on productive work for the employer. | The make-up time did not violate the FLSA; not a protected accommodation. |
| Whether plaintiff’s termination was causally related to protected activity | Termination followed his complaints about accommodation; retaliation existed. | No protected activity established; no causal link demonstrated. | Not reached as protected activity was not shown (dispositive). |
| Whether the accommodation offered was reasonable under the PWDCRA | The make-up-time accommodation was an unreasonable request under the PWDCRA due to FLSA conflict. | Accommodation was reasonable and Michigan Bell offered a flexible schedule; plaintiff rejected it. | Make-up-time accommodation did not violate the PWDCRA; plaintiff failed to show a missing reasonable accommodation. |
| Whether plaintiff could claim constructive discharge | Conditions were intolerable and forced resignation. | Accommodation offer did not create an intolerable working condition. | No constructive discharge; conditions were not objectively intolerable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Adair v. Charter County of Wayne, 452 F.3d 482 (6th Cir.2006) (McDonnell Douglas framework for retaliation claims)
- Regan v. Faurecia Automotive Seating, Inc., 679 F.3d 475 (6th Cir.2012) (constructive discharge framework and intolerable conditions)
- Yates v. Avco Corp., 819 F.2d 630 (6th Cir.1987) (objective standard for intolerable working conditions)
- Mitchell v. Greinetz, 235 F.2d 621 (10th Cir.1956) (employer breaks must be compensated when mandated to enhance productivity)