819 F. Supp. 2d 641
W.D. Ky.2011Background
- Webb began employment with Humana on December 4, 2006 as a customer care specialist, later assigned to the Auto Unit.
- He was diagnosed with Multiple Myeloma in early 2007 and went on disability leave from February 24, 2007, returning to work August 18, 2008 with partial medical release and ongoing treatment.
- Webb informed Hack (supervisor) of his treatment schedule; Hack accommodated a late start for training in August 2008 and assured his partial-recovery status would not be a problem.
- He missed several days in late 2008 due to cancer treatment and complications; a CCIP was issued November 4, 2008 due to absenteeism, restricting further absences before January 31, 2009.
- Webb requested time off December 15–18, 2008 for Arkansas treatment; Defendants attempted to accommodate; Webb later missed December 29–31, 2008 and was terminated December 31, 2008 after hospitalization for bronchitis.
- Webb alleged disability discrimination (disparate treatment and failure to accommodate) as well as retaliation, wrongful discharge, and IIED under Kentucky law; Defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Webb disabled under the ADA/KCRA? | Webb asserts cancer substantially limits major life activities. | Defendants argue there is insufficient evidence of a substantial limitation. | Webb fails to show substantial limitation; assumption only for purposes of analysis, but not proved. |
| Was Webb 'otherwise qualified' with or without accommodation? | A defined medical leave could be a reasonable accommodation allowing qualification despite absences. | Gantt/Cehrs rule limits accommodation; no evidence of undue hardship; but absence of explicit accommodation request undermines claim. | Webb met initial burden but failed due to lack of explicit reasonable accommodation and absence of undue hardship evidence. |
| Did Humana fail to reasonably accommodate Webb or treat him differently as disabled? | Humana accommodated other disabled employees; Webb was treated less favorably. | No evidence of similarly situated disabled employees treated more favorably; accommodation was not shown as required. | No demonstration of a favorable treatment of similarly situated non-disabled employees; failure to prove a genuine issue of pretext. |
| Did Webb establish a prima facie case of ADA retaliation and show pretext? | Webb opposed harassment; protected activity; termination close in time; alleged pretext. | Proffered reason (absenteeism) is legitimate; no clear pretext or evidence of differential treatment. | Proximate timing suggested; but no evidence of pretext; retaliation claim fails. |
| Are the remaining Kentucky common law claims preempted by the KCRA? | IIED and wrongful discharge should proceed; not preempted where independently alleged. | KCRA preempts IIED and related wrongful discharge where basis is discrimination. | KCRA preempts Webb's IIED and wrongful discharge claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hopkins v. Electronic Data Sys. Corp., 196 F.3d 655 (6th Cir.1999) (elements of prima facie case for discrimination under ADA framework)
- Talley v. Bravo Pitino Rest., Ltd., 61 F.3d 1241 (6th Cir.1995) (elements of prima facie case and similarly situated employees)
- McKay v. Toyota Motor Mfg., U.S.A., Inc., 110 F.3d 369 (6th Cir.1997) (significant restriction to work as a criterion for disability)
- Cehrs v. Northeast Ohio Alzheimer's Research Ctr., 155 F.3d 775 (6th Cir.1998) (medical leave as reasonable accommodation under appropriate circumstances)
- Brenneman v. MedCentral Health Sys., 366 F.3d 412 (6th Cir.2004) (excessive absenteeism may render employee not qualified)
- Weigel v. Baptist Hosp. of E. Tenn., 302 F.3d 367 (6th Cir.2002) (pretext analysis requires evidence of treatment of similarly situated employees)
- Ercegovich v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 154 F.3d 344 (6th Cir.1998) (pretext framework for discrimination cases)
- Nguyen v. City of Cleveland, 229 F.3d 559 (6th Cir.2000) (causal link for retaliation cases)
- EEOC v. Avery Dennison Corp., 104 F.3d 858 (6th Cir.1997) (protected activity can be broad)
- Crawford v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson County, 555 U.S. 271 (Supreme Court 2009) (broad interpretation of opposition under ADA)