Waggoner v. Carlex Glass America, LLC, 682 F. App'x 412

Michael Waggoner, who has bipolar disorder, was employed at a glass plant and had a history of four workplace outbursts (yelling, threats, and in one instance pursuing a coworker). Carlex acquired the plant in 2011 and operated under a union agreement permitting discharge only for cause.
While employed by a predecessor (Zeledyne), Waggoner was suspended and signed a "last chance" agreement after earlier incidents; the agreement permitted immediate discharge for further outbursts.
After several incidents at Carlex (including April and September 2013 episodes in which Waggoner yelled at his team leader, A.J. Jones), Carlex fired Waggoner in October 2013 for violating the rule prohibiting abusive or threatening language.
Waggoner filed an EEOC charge alleging disability discrimination and failure to accommodate; he later sued in federal court asserting discrimination, failure to accommodate, retaliation, and hostile-work-environment claims. The district court granted summary judgment for Carlex, dismissing retaliation and hostile-environment claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
On appeal, the Sixth Circuit reviewed summary judgment de novo and affirmed: discrimination and failure-to-accommodate claims failed on the merits; retaliation and hostile-environment claims were dismissed for lack of exhaustion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Disability discrimination (termination)	Waggoner: fired because of bipolar disorder; similarly situated non-disabled coworkers were treated better	Carlex: Waggoner's misconduct (four violent outbursts) was more serious; others had different circumstances and no last-chance agreement	Court: No discrimination — non-disabled employees not similarly situated; misconduct and prior agreement justified discharge
Failure to accommodate (transfer request)	Waggoner: alleged he sought transfer to avoid triggers and thus requested an accommodation	Carlex: no clear request tied to disability; employee must inform employer that accommodation is needed	Court: No accommodation obligation — Waggoner did not clearly request accommodation or link it to his disability
Retaliation (rejection for transfer)	Waggoner: Carlex rejected transfer in retaliation for requesting accommodation	Carlex: charge to EEOC did not raise retaliation; plaintiff did not exhaust administrative remedies	Court: Dismissed — retaliation claim not raised in EEOC charge; not reasonably within scope of that charge
Hostile work environment (supervisor harassed him)	Waggoner: alleged ongoing harassment by a supervisor because of his disability	Carlex: EEOC charge contained no harassment allegations; claim unexhausted	Court: Dismissed — hostile-environment claim not exhausted administratively

Gillis v. Miller, 845 F.3d 677 (6th Cir. 2017) (summary-judgment standard review)
Wright v. Murray Guard, Inc., 455 F.3d 702 (6th Cir. 2006) (similarly situated standard in disciplinary context)
Jones v. Potter, 488 F.3d 397 (6th Cir. 2007) (similarly situated and comparative treatment in discrimination cases)
Gantt v. Wilson Sporting Goods Co., 143 F.3d 1042 (6th Cir. 1998) (employee must request accommodation)
Smith v. Henderson, 376 F.3d 529 (6th Cir. 2004) (employee need not use magic words when requesting accommodation)
Tennial v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 840 F.3d 292 (6th Cir. 2016) (employee must make clear request and link to disability)
Parry v. Mohawk Motors of Mich., Inc., 236 F.3d 299 (6th Cir. 2000) (EEOC charge and right-to-sue requirement)
Cleveland Branch, N.A.A.C.P. v. City of Parma, OH, 263 F.3d 513 (6th Cir. 2001) (claims in federal court limited to EEOC charge scope)
Ang v. Procter & Gamble Co., 932 F.2d 540 (6th Cir. 1991) (liberal construction of charge not required when plaintiff has counsel)
Younis v. Pinnacle Airlines, Inc., 610 F.3d 359 (6th Cir. 2010) (claims must reasonably grow out of EEOC charge to be exhausted)