Zaffino v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County
688 F. App'x 356
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Angela Zaffino, a guidance counselor, suffered a 2005 stroke and has fibromuscular dysplasia; she monitors blood pressure and seeks to avoid stress to reduce stroke risk.
- In 2013 the school district transferred Zaffino from Dupont-Tyler Middle School to Madison Middle School; she requested seven ADA accommodations, including to remain at Dupont-Tyler because it is within 2 miles of Summit Medical Center.
- The district investigated, conferred with her physicians, and learned Madison was approximately the same distance from Summit and later that Madison was near another certified stroke center; it denied the Dupont-Tyler request and directed the transfer.
- The district offered Dodson Elementary (closer to Summit) as an alternative; Zaffino refused because the placement lacked multiyear guarantees.
- Zaffino sued under the ADA for failure to accommodate and for failing to engage in the interactive process; the district court granted summary judgment for Metro, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether employer must keep Zaffino at a specific worksite as a reasonable ADA accommodation | Zaffino: staying at Dupont-Tyler within 2 miles of a stroke center is needed to avoid stress/medical delay that could trigger another stroke | Metro: requested site addresses off-site medical access and stress, not job functions; ADA does not require insulating employees from off-site risks or change | Court: denied—employer not required to accommodate commute/off-site access or change-related stress; requested accommodation not objectively reasonable |
| Whether Zaffino proposed an objectively reasonable accommodation | Zaffino: her proposed accommodation (remain at Dupont-Tyler) is reasonable and necessary to perform job safely | Metro: accommodation addresses non-workplace barriers and is not required; offered reasonable alternatives (Dodson; Madison near stroke center) | Court: Zaffino failed to meet initial burden to propose objectively reasonable accommodation |
| Whether Metro engaged in the ADA’s interactive process in good faith | Zaffino: district did not engage in the interactive process in good faith | Metro: district met and corresponded with Zaffino and her physicians and offered alternatives | Court: Metro engaged in the interactive process in good faith; district court reasoning adopted |
| Whether refusal of Dodson alternative defeats Zaffino’s claim | Zaffino: refused because placement not guaranteed in future years | Metro: offered a reasonable alternative closer to medical center; refusal unreasonable | Court: Zaffino’s refusal to accept Dodson supported grant of summary judgment for Metro |
Key Cases Cited
- Regan v. Faurecia Auto. Seating, Inc., 679 F.3d 475 (6th Cir. 2012) (ADA does not require employers to accommodate barriers that exist outside the workplace, such as commute concerns)
- Kleiber v. Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc., 485 F.3d 862 (6th Cir. 2007) (plaintiff bears initial burden to propose an objectively reasonable accommodation)
- Hedrick v. W. Reserve Care Sys., 355 F.3d 444 (6th Cir. 2004) (framework for reasonable accommodation and interactive process)
- Siggers v. Campbell, 652 F.3d 681 (6th Cir. 2011) (standard of review for summary judgment in ADA cases)
- Stein v. Regions Morgan Keegan Select High Income Fund, Inc., 821 F.3d 780 (6th Cir. 2016) (appellate courts may affirm district court on any grounds supported by the record)