Stewart v. Bear Mgmt., Inc.
98 N.E.3d 900
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Anne Stewart, a Pizza Oven employee, was injured on Feb 16, 2013 at a second job and sought FMLA leave; she suffered a torn rotator cuff and fractured hand requiring surgery.
- Stewart testified she had a physician release to work with a five‑pound restriction and delivered a written release to store manager Elaine Mayle in Feb 2013; medical records in the record show conflicting release dates and periods of temporary total disability.
- Stewart claims manager Timothy Weinman told her she could not return without a full release; she did not follow up to inform him she had a restricted release.
- Stewart was off work post‑surgery and medical reports in the record indicate she was not released to any work through at least Sept 1, 2013; Weinman left a voicemail in July 2013 which Stewart interprets as termination.
- Stewart sued Bear Management and two managers for disability discrimination and failure to accommodate; the trial court granted summary judgment to defendants, and Stewart appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Stewart established prima facie disability discrimination (could perform essential functions) | Stewart: she was released to work with 5‑lb restriction and could perform job with that restriction | Defendants: medical records show Stewart was not released to work until after termination, so she could not perform essential functions | Court: No genuine issue — records show she was not released to work until after termination; summary judgment for defendants affirmed |
| Whether Stewart requested a reasonable accommodation | Stewart: she gave a written restricted release and alleged prior contact; waiver/futility applies because Weinman said full release required | Defendants: Stewart did not request an accommodation and testified she did not discuss accommodations; no accommodation proposed | Court: Stewart failed to meet element requiring a requested accommodation and to propose a reasonable accommodation; summary judgment proper |
| Whether defendants' stated reason for termination was pretext | Stewart: timing and communication create an inference of discriminatory motive | Defendants: non‑discriminatory reason — inability to work due to medical restrictions | Court: No evidence of pretext shown in the record before the court; summary judgment for defendants upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Hounshell v. Am. States Ins. Co., 67 Ohio St.2d 427 (Ohio 1981) (summary judgment standard; construing evidence most strongly for non‑movant)
- Inland Refuse Transfer Co. v. Browning‑Ferris Inds. of Ohio, Inc., 15 Ohio St.3d 321 (Ohio 1984) (court may not resolve evidentiary ambiguities on summary judgment)
- Smiddy v. The Wedding Party, Inc., 30 Ohio St.3d 35 (Ohio 1987) (appellate review of summary judgment is de novo)
- Doe v. Shaffer, 90 Ohio St.3d 388 (Ohio 2000) (standard of review on appeal)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (summary judgment burdens: movant identifies absence of genuine issue; non‑movant must supply specific facts)
- Henkle v. Henkle, 75 Ohio App.3d 732 (Ohio App. 1991) (non‑movant may not rest on pleadings to resist summary judgment)
- Hood v. Diamond Prod., Inc., 74 Ohio St.3d 298 (Ohio 1996) (elements of prima facie disability discrimination under Ohio law)
- Shaver v. Wolske & Blue, 138 Ohio App.3d 653 (Ohio App. 2000) (employee may satisfy ability‑to‑perform element by showing performable with reasonable accommodation)
- Barber v. Chestnut Land Co., 63 N.E.3d 609 (Ohio 2016) (elements of failure‑to‑accommodate claim)
- Columbus Civ. Serv. Comm. v. McGlone, 82 Ohio St.3d 569 (Ohio 1998) (Ohio courts may look to federal ADA authorities when interpreting Ohio anti‑discrimination law)
- Smith v. Henderson, 376 F.3d 529 (6th Cir. 2004) (futility exception to accommodation request requirement)