William Sharp v. James Profitt, 674 F. App'x 440

Background

William Sharp, a Waste Management residential-route driver, allegedly injured his back at work on March 27, 2012, but did not complete the company’s one‑page incident report form at that time.
Waste Management’s Employee Handbook required employees to report work‑related injuries to a supervisor and to complete an incident report; failure could result in termination.
Sharp sought medical care, took FMLA leave, had surgery, returned with restrictions, and on August 15, 2012 filed a workers’ compensation claim; corporate HR learned of the claim in October 2012.
When asked in October to complete the incident report, Sharp twice declined (stating he wanted his attorney present or to take the form home), and Waste Management terminated him for failing to report the injury and for insubordination.
Sharp sued for Ohio workers’ compensation retaliation, wrongful discharge in violation of Ohio public policy (for consulting an attorney), ADA discrimination and retaliation, and FMLA retaliation; the district court granted summary judgment to Waste Management.
The Sixth Circuit majority affirmed summary judgment, concluding Waste Management had legitimate, non‑pretextual reasons (failure to report and refusal to complete the form); Judge Moore dissented, arguing genuine factual disputes (e.g., whether verbal notice satisfied the policy) precluded summary judgment.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether termination violated Ohio workers’ compensation retaliation statute (R.C. §4123.90)	Sharp says he was fired in retaliation for filing a workers’ comp claim (timing, supervisor hostility, and prior manager’s warning)	Waste Management says Sharp repeatedly violated a safety/reporting policy and refused to complete incident forms, giving legitimate non‑retaliatory reasons for firing	Affirmed for defendant: plaintiff failed to show employer’s reasons were pretextual; timing and remarks insufficient to prove causation or pretext
Whether termination violated Ohio public policy forbidding firing for consulting an attorney	Sharp says he was terminated after seeking counsel and delivering an attorney’s letter; firing for consulting counsel violates public policy	Waste Management contends it did not fire him solely for consulting an attorney but for insubordination and failing to follow reporting rules	Affirmed for defendant: no evidence he was fired solely for consulting counsel and employer had overriding legitimate justification
ADA discrimination / "regarded as" disabled claim	Sharp contends employer regarded him as disabled (e.g., told to pull over as unfit to drive)	Waste Management says it knew of his back issues, allowed him to work with restrictions, and a comment does not establish belief in a substantially limiting impairment	Affirmed for defendant: isolated remark did not create genuine dispute that employer regarded him as substantially limited
ADA and FMLA retaliation claims (causation and pretext)	Sharp says the attorney letter and timing show retaliatory motive	Waste Management points to the failure-to‑report and refusal to complete forms as legitimate reasons; timing alone insufficient; FMLA retaliation requires but‑for causation	Affirmed for defendant: plaintiff failed to show but‑for causation and failed to establish pretext

Key Cases Cited

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (explains burden‑shifting framework for discrimination/retaliation claims)
Chen v. Dow Chem. Co., 580 F.3d 394 (6th Cir. 2009) (summary judgment standard and pretext proof methods)
Clay v. U.P.S., Inc., 501 F.3d 695 (6th Cir. 2007) (methods to show pretext)
Whitfield v. Tennessee, 639 F.3d 253 (6th Cir. 2011) (ADA disability/regarded‑as analysis)
Sutton v. Tomco Machining, Inc., 950 N.E.2d 938 (Ohio 2011) (timing and causation in Ohio workers’ compensation retaliation and public‑policy context)
Nassar v. University of Texas Southwestern Medical Ctr., 133 S. Ct. 2517 (2013) (but‑for causation standard in retaliation claims)