Insight

Morrissey v. Laurel Health Care Company: Sixth Circuit Issues Favorable Opinion on Employee's ADA Failure to Accommodate Claim

Morrissey v. Laurel Health Care Company: Sixth Circuit Issues Favorable Opinion on Employee's ADA Failure to Accommodate Claim

Greg Mansell

Greg Mansell

December 10, 2019 10:39 AM

Earlier this month (December 3, 2019), the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a favorable opinion for employee rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). In Morrissey v. Laurel Health Care Company, the plaintiff was a licensed practical nurse that was forced to quit her job because her employer would not accommodate her work restrictions, which included a reduced or modified work schedule. The employer had a policy that denied accommodations and work restrictions unless they were due to a work related injury. Our Columbus ADA Disability attorneys provide a full analysis in this article.

Morrissey v. Laurel Health Care Company

Main Take-Aways:

1. In determining whether an employee is disabled, pre-2008 (prior to the Amendment to the ADA) case law is no longer good law.

2. An employee doesn’t have to tell its employer the specific diagnosis to request an accommodation. An employer has notice of the employee’s disability when the employee tells the employer that he is disabled.

3. A claim based on a termination or constructive discharge for a failure to accommodate is properly analyzed under the direct evidence method.

4. A reasonable accommodation includes “job restructuring, part-time or modified work schedules, reassignment to a vacant position . . ., and other similar accommodations for individuals with disabilities.” 42 U.S.C. § 12111(9)(B)

The Case:

Rita Morrissey was employed as a licensed practical nurse working at The Laurels of Coldwater (“Coldwater”) from 2001 until 2016. In 2012, she informed Coldwater that, due to physically disabling issues with her back, she could not work more than twelve-hours per shift. In support, she submitted a note from her primary care physician and other health care professionals.

In December 2015, Coldwater transitioned two of its three nursing units, including Morrissey’s, to twelve-hour shifts. Morrissey was concerned about this transition because Coldwater would mandate its nurses to work more than twelve-hours when the next shift was not fully staffed. Before a nurse was mandated to stay for more than twelve-hours, Coldwater management would call around to see if they could get the shift covered voluntarily. If they could not, a nurse that was currently working that shift had to stay on beyond the twelve-hours. To determine which nurse’s turn it was to be mandated, Coldwater followed an unwritten procedure. Management maintained a list that kept track of which nurse had been mandated most recently. That nurse was moved to the back of the list and so forth. In the case of a tie, the selection was alphabetical.

The circumstances changed on January 31, 2016, however, when Morrissey was mandated by Coldwater to stay and work a 13.5-hour shift. Morrissey testified that, upon learning that she would have to work more than twelve hours, she told her manager that she had a twelve-hour work restriction that had to be honored under the Americans with Disabilities Act, but the manager responded that she was unaware of Morrissey’s restriction or accommodation and that the manager had “no control” over the situation. The next day, Morrissey said that she spoke with the Michigan Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and left a message with a Coldwater corporate officer.

Five days later, the situation deteriorated further. During Morrissey’s February 4, 2016 shift, she was informed that she was going to be mandated to work sixteen hours because a replacement nurse had called off from work. Morrissey testified that it was not her turn to be mandated; in fact, it was another nurse’s turn. The other nurse corroborated that it was her turn to be mandated in an affidavit. In the middle of the shift, Morrissey went to speak with the Director of Nursing about being mandated to work more than twelve hours, but the DON, purportedly, told Morrissey that there was nothing she could do. Morrissey left prior to her shift ending and never returned to Coldwater.

There are two methods of proof that can be utilized to prove disability discrimination: Direct and Indirect Evidence. Here, the Sixth Circuit held that the direct method applied, stating:

When an “employer acknowledges that it relied upon the plaintiff’s handicap in
making its employment decision, the McDonnell Douglas burden shifting approach is unnecessary because the issue of the employer’s intent, the issue for which McDonnell Douglas was designed, has been admitted by the defendant and the plaintiff has direct evidence of discrimination on the basis of his or her disability.”

Direct evidence of disability discrimination does not require the fact finder to draw any inferences to conclude “that the disability was at least a motivating factor. Because not making reasonable accommodations” is listed in the ADA’s definition of disability discrimination, claims premised upon an employer’s failure to offer a reasonable accommodation necessarily involve direct evidence (the failure to accommodate) of discrimination.”

Morrissey’s claims included: 1) a failure to accommodate and constructive discharge claim, and 2) a retaliation claim. Morrissey told Coldwater that she could not work more than twelve-hours per shift
because she suffered from a disability as defined by the ADA. That was enough to establish that she was disabled and that her employer was aware of it.

Failure to Accommodate

To state a claim for failure to accommodate under the direct method, an employee must show first that she is disabled, and second that she is otherwise qualified for the position despite his or her disability: (a) without accommodation from the employer; (b) with an alleged essential job requirement eliminated; or (c) with a proposed reasonable accommodation.

Morrissey testified that Coldwater had a policy whereby it did not accommodate any employee’s medical restrictions unless the injury was job-related. On February 4, 2016, Morrissey was required to work a 16-hour shift because Coldwater would not honor her requested accommodation. As a result, she was forced to quit her position. The Sixth Circuit held that this was evidence of discrimination and that the case should be resolved by a jury.

Retaliation for Requesting an Accommodation

To establish a case of retaliation, an must show that (1) she engaged in activity protected under the ADA; (2) the employer knew of that activity; (3) the employer took an adverse action (eg. termination or constructive discharge) against the employee; and (4) there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action.

The Sixth Circuit also determined that the facts provided evidence that Coldwater retaliated against Morrissey for requesting a reasonable accommodation under the ADA and that it resulted in her constructive discharge.

If you believe that you have been discriminated against because of your medical condition or disability, or that your employer has failed to accommodate your medical condition, contact your Columbus Ohio employment attorneys at Mansell Law. Our lawyers have substantial experience in handling ADA cases. Call us today or submit an inquiry on our website.

Related Articles

ADA Website Compliance: A Better Experience for Law Firms and Clients


by Gregory Sirico

Information technology leader and civil rights lawyers weigh in on the vital need for website accessibility in the digital age, especially for law firms and companies like Best Lawyers.

Pixelated eye with rainbow effect

What the Courts Say About Recording in the Classroom


by Christina Henagen Peer and Peter Zawadski

Students and parents are increasingly asking to use audio devices to record what's being said in the classroom. But is it legal? A recent ruling offer gives the answer to a question confusing parents and administrators alike.

Is It Legal for Students to Record Teachers?

Trending Articles

The Best Lawyers in Spain™ 2023


by Best Lawyers

Announcing Spain's recognized lawyers for 2023.

Flag of Spain

Announcing the 2023 The Best Lawyers in America Honorees


by Best Lawyers

Only the top 5.3% of all practicing lawyers in the U.S. were selected by their peers for inclusion in the 29th edition of The Best Lawyers in America®.

Gold strings and dots connecting to form US map

The Best Lawyers in Chile™ 2023


by Best Lawyers

The results include an elite field of top lawyers and firms in Chile.

White star in blue box beside white box with red box on bottom

Thirteen Years of Excellence


by Best Lawyers

For the 13th consecutive year, “Best Law Firms” has awarded the most elite and talented law firms across the country through a thorough and trusted data review process.

Red, white and blue pipes and writing on black background

The Best Lawyers in South Africa™ 2023


by Best Lawyers

Best Lawyers proudly announces lawyers recognized in South Africa for 2023.

South African flag

The 2023 Best Lawyers in Portugal™


by Best Lawyers

Announcing the elite group of lawyers recognized in Portugal for 2023.

Green and red Portuguese flag

Announcing The Best Lawyers in Peru™ 2023


by Best Lawyers

Honoring our awarded lawyers for 2023 in Peru.

Red and white stripes with green leaf symbol

The Best Lawyers in Spain™ 2022


by Best Lawyers

The results include an elite field of top lawyers and firms.

The Best Lawyers in Spain™ 2022

Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America for 2023


by Best Lawyers

The third edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America™ highlights the legal talent of lawyers who have been in practice less than 10 years.

Three arrows made of lines and dots on blue background

Famous Songs Unprotected by Copyright Could Mean Royalties for Some


by Michael B. Fein

A guide to navigating copyright claims on famous songs.

Can I Sing "Happy Birthday" in Public?

IN PARTNERSHIP

Rewriting 𝙃𝙀𝙍𝙨𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙮 One Verdict at a Time


by Justin Smulison

Athea Trial Lawyers was formed only a year ago by several prestigious lawyers seeking justice for their clients, and together they are making history.

Six female lawyers sitting in office

Announcing the 2022 Best Lawyers® in the United States


by Best Lawyers

The results include an elite field of top lawyers listed in the 28th Edition of The Best Lawyers in America® and in the 2nd Edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America for 2022.

2022 Best Lawyers Listings for United States

Announcing the 2023 The Best Lawyers in Canada Honorees


by Best Lawyers

The Best Lawyers in Canada™ is entering its 17th edition for 2023. We highlight the elite lawyers awarded this year.

Red map of Canada with white lines and dots

What the Courts Say About Recording in the Classroom


by Christina Henagen Peer and Peter Zawadski

Students and parents are increasingly asking to use audio devices to record what's being said in the classroom. But is it legal? A recent ruling offer gives the answer to a question confusing parents and administrators alike.

Is It Legal for Students to Record Teachers?

Strength in Numbers: When Partnering Up May Be Best in Whistleblower Litigation


by Justin Smulison

Whistleblower claims make headlines when they result in multimillion-dollar settlements. But the journey to the courtroom is characterized by complexity and requires time and resources. Bienert Katzman Littrell Williams partner and The Best Lawyers in America awardee Michael R. Williams discusses when and why partnerships between counsel will strengthen whistleblower litigation.

A Blue Person in the Middle of White People

Announcing the 2022 "Best Law Firms" Rankings


by Best Lawyers

The 2022 “Best Law Firms” publication includes all “Law Firm of the Year” recipients, national and metro Tier 1 ranked firms and editorial from thought leaders in the legal industry.

The 2022 Best Law Firms Awards