Fisher v. Nissan N.A., Inc.
951 F.3d 409 (2020)
Rule of Law:
An employer's failure to provide a reasonable accommodation is direct evidence of discrimination under the ADA, and an employer may not discipline or terminate a qualified employee for absenteeism that results from the employer's failure to provide such accommodation.
Facts:
- Michael Fisher, a production technician at Nissan since 2003 with positive performance reviews, developed severe kidney disease.
- In 2015, Fisher's request for a transfer to an easier position was denied, and a supervisor told him to go on extended leave.
- In August 2016, Fisher underwent a kidney transplant; his anti-rejection medication caused severe, flu-like symptoms.
- Upon returning to work in October 2016, Nissan placed Fisher in a new role that he found to be physically harder than his previous one.
- Fisher's requests for extra breaks or a part-time schedule were refused, and his supervisor's response to a transfer request was noncommittal.
- After returning to his old position in November 2016, Fisher's ongoing recovery symptoms caused him to accrue absences for which he had no leave time.
- Between December 2016 and February 2017, Nissan issued Fisher a verbal warning, a written warning, and a final written warning for these disability-related absences.
- During disciplinary meetings, Fisher repeatedly requested accommodations, including a transfer to a less strenuous position like checking bolts, but a supervisor stated his 'hands were tied.'
Procedural Posture:
- Michael Fisher sued Nissan North America, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.
- Fisher's complaint alleged claims for failure to accommodate under the ADA, failure to engage in the interactive process, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Nissan on all of Fisher's claims.
- Fisher, as the plaintiff-appellant, appealed the district court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an employer violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by failing to provide a reasonable accommodation, such as reassignment to a vacant position, for a qualified disabled employee and then disciplining that employee for disability-related absences that a reasonable accommodation could have prevented?
Opinions:
Majority - Stranch
Yes, an employer violates the ADA by failing to provide a reasonable accommodation and then disciplining the employee for absences caused by that failure. Claims for failure to accommodate constitute direct evidence of discrimination, making the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework unnecessary. An employee is not rendered 'unqualified' by absenteeism if the absences themselves are a result of the employer’s failure to reasonably accommodate the disability. Here, Fisher proposed a reasonable accommodation—reassignment to a vacant, less strenuous position like checking bolts—for which a factfinder could conclude he was qualified. Once Fisher requested this accommodation, Nissan had a duty to engage in the interactive process in good faith, which includes identifying alternative positions. A reasonable factfinder could conclude that Nissan was responsible for the breakdown of this process when it summarily dismissed Fisher's repeated requests for a transfer. Therefore, material factual disputes remain, and summary judgment for Nissan was improper.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that an employer cannot use a neutral attendance policy to shield itself from ADA liability when an employee's absences are a direct result of the employer's failure to accommodate. It solidifies the Sixth Circuit's position that failure-to-accommodate claims are analyzed under the more plaintiff-friendly direct evidence standard, rather than the indirect McDonnell Douglas framework. The case also emphasizes an employer's affirmative duty to actively engage in the interactive process once an accommodation is requested, including exploring alternative positions, rather than passively or dismissively responding to the employee's needs. This precedent strengthens protections for employees whose ability to meet job requirements, like attendance, is impacted by a disability that could be accommodated.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Fisher v. Nissan N.A., Inc. (2020)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"