Virgil Gamble v. JP Morgan Chase
689 F. App'x 397
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Gamble, a Financial Advisor employed by J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., suffered multiple automobile injuries and cardiac events beginning in 2009–2011 and was placed on short‑term then long‑term disability through Prudential until May 14, 2013.
- While on leave, Gamble failed to complete FINRA continuing‑education; a JPMS compliance VP filed a Form U5 terminating his securities registration in December 2012; Gamble never completed the requirements to reinstate the license.
- Gamble’s physician advised he not return to his stockbroker position and certified he was unable to work through February 2012; Gamble repeatedly represented in other proceedings and depositions that he was totally or permanently disabled and not released to work.
- JP Morgan sent letters in August and September 2013 asking Gamble to confirm intent to return; Gamble did not respond and the Bank terminated his employment effective September 9, 2013.
- Gamble sued in April 2015 asserting ADA claims (failure to accommodate and discriminatory discharge) and an ADEA claim; the district court granted JP Morgan summary judgment and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination violated the ADA as discriminatory discharge | Gamble: termination was discrimination based on disability | JP Morgan: Gamble was not a "qualified individual" because he was not released to work and could not perform essential functions | Court: Affirmed — Gamble was not qualified; summary judgment for JP Morgan |
| Whether JP Morgan failed to provide reasonable accommodation under the ADA | Gamble: requested accommodation (transfer/reassignment) and employer failed to engage in interactive process | JP Morgan: no proper accommodation request; letters offered were unauthenticated and excluded; employee must request accommodation and show he is qualified | Court: Affirmed — Gamble failed to request accommodation and was not otherwise qualified |
| Whether employer’s failure to engage in interactive process is actionable | Gamble: JP Morgan’s failure to engage prevented him from proposing accommodations | JP Morgan: interactive‑process claim only actionable if employee is otherwise qualified; no evidence of a timely request | Held: Interactive‑process claim fails because Gamble was not qualified and did not properly request accommodation |
| Whether termination violated the ADEA (age discrimination) | Gamble: replaced by younger employee, establishes prima facie ADEA claim | JP Morgan: Gamble was not qualified for his position due to disability; thus cannot meet prima facie | Court: Affirmed — Gamble was not qualified; ADEA claim fails (also waived on appeal for not addressing district court’s basis) |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (framework for burden‑shifting in discrimination cases)
- Whitfield v. Tennessee, 639 F.3d 253 (6th Cir. 2011) (ADA prima facie elements)
- Macy v. Hopkins County Board of Education, 484 F.3d 357 (6th Cir. 2007) (elements of ADA discrimination claim)
- Williams v. AT&T Mobility Servs. LLC, 847 F.3d 384 (6th Cir. 2017) (employee must be otherwise qualified; regular attendance is often essential)
- E.E.O.C. v. Ford Motor Co., 782 F.3d 753 (6th Cir. 2015) (regular on‑site attendance as essential function)
- Gantt v. Wilson Sporting Goods Co., 143 F.3d 1042 (6th Cir. 1998) (employee not qualified when not medically released to return)
- Kleiber v. Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc., 485 F.3d 862 (6th Cir. 2007) (reassignment as a possible reasonable accommodation)
- Tennial v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 840 F.3d 292 (6th Cir. 2016) (summary judgment standard in ADEA/ADA contexts)
- Pierson v. Quad/Graphics Printing Corp., 749 F.3d 530 (6th Cir. 2014) (ADEA prima facie elements)
- Wexler v. White’s Fine Furniture, Inc., 317 F.3d 564 (6th Cir. 2003) (what it means to be qualified for job in discrimination context)