Wayne Henschel v. Clare County Road Commission
737 F.3d 1017
6th Cir.2013Background
- Henschel, an excavator operator for Clare County Road Commission (CCRC), lost his left leg above the knee in a 2009 motorcycle accident and was fitted with a prosthesis.
- CCRC had a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with AFSCME; job descriptions assigned hauling the excavator to the Truck/Tractor Driver, while Excavator Operator descriptions listed "other duties assigned."
- Henschel had hauled the excavator to sites about 70% of the time during his tenure, but testified the excavator stayed at a site 90% of the time; other employees (including a semi-truck driver) sometimes did the hauling.
- Michigan authorities granted Henschel a CDL medical waiver limited to automatic transmissions; CCRC tested his abilities across various positions and concluded he could not return to the excavator job.
- CCRC attempted to reassign Henschel to a year-round automatic-transmission blade truck via a letter of understanding with the Union; the Union withdrew before formalizing because it would displace more senior employees and implicate the CBA.
- Henschel filed an EEOC charge (which found an ADA violation) and then sued under the ADA; the district court granted summary judgment for CCRC, finding hauling an essential function and reassignment unreasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether hauling the excavator is an essential function of the Excavator Operator job | Hauling is not essential: job descriptions for Excavator Operator do not list hauling; hauling was marginal in time and others could haul | Hauling is essential; employer judgment and practice show operator hauled frequently and removing duty would fundamentally alter job | Reversed district court: genuine factual dispute exists about whether hauling is essential; summary judgment inappropriate |
| Whether Henschel is qualified to operate the excavator safely with prosthesis | Evidence (former operators and a safety inspector) that he could operate safely | CCRC managers and union head believed he could not operate safely | Remanded: factual dispute exists; district court should decide in first instance whether genuine issue remains |
| Whether reassignment to a year-round blade truck was a reasonable accommodation | Reassignment was a viable accommodation (automatic-transmission blade truck) | Reassignment would violate CBA by displacing senior employees or require creating a new position; not required by ADA | Affirmed: reassigning to a year-round blade truck was not a reasonable accommodation as a matter of law given CBA constraints |
| Whether job restructuring (e.g., assigning automatic-transmission blade/grader duties within Excavator Operator) was considered | Henschel argued non-essential duties can be restructured as accommodation | CCRC did not fully evaluate restructuring and raised CBA limits | Declined to decide: court noted restructuring may be required in some circumstances and remanded for district court to consider reasonable accommodations short of displacement |
Key Cases Cited
- Brickers v. Cleveland Bd. of Educ., 145 F.3d 846 (6th Cir. 1998) (essential-function inquiry is typically fact-specific and not suited to summary judgment)
- Kiphart v. Saturn Corp., 251 F.3d 573 (6th Cir. 2001) (an essential job function is one whose removal would fundamentally alter the position)
- Hall v. U.S. Postal Serv., 857 F.2d 1073 (6th Cir. 1988) (job descriptions must be viewed alongside actual job functioning when evaluating essential functions)
- Bratten v. SSI Servs., Inc., 185 F.3d 625 (6th Cir. 1999) (ADA does not require employer to violate a collective bargaining agreement or create new positions to accommodate)
- Kleiber v. Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc., 485 F.3d 862 (6th Cir. 2007) (reassignment to a vacant position is a permissible accommodation but employer need not breach a CBA)
- Keith v. Cnty. of Oakland, 703 F.3d 918 (6th Cir. 2013) (reasonableness of accommodations depends on efficacy and proportional costs)
- Saroli v. Automation & Modular Components, Inc., 405 F.3d 446 (6th Cir. 2005) (standard of review for summary judgment in ADA cases)