Employee Request for Less Stressful Boss Does Not Qualify for ADA - American Society of Employers - Kristen Cifolelli

Employee Request for Less Stressful Boss Does Not Qualify for ADA

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), an employee must show that they have a physical or mental impairment and that the impairment “substantially limits one or more major life activities” in order to qualify as a disability.   The recent ruling in  Tinsley v. Caterpillar Fin. Servs., Corp., No. 18-5303 (6th Cir. Mar. 20, 2019) by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee), sends a good reminder to employers that not all impairments rise to the level of qualifying as a disability under the ADA. gavel

 

Cindy Tinsley was hired by Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation in 1997 as a paralegal.  She later moved to the business side of the organization and was promoted to a Business Systems Analyst position in October 2013.  In this role she was paired with a group of other employees on the Four Pillars Project (FPP).  Tinsley reported to the FPP team leader, Amy Clendenon, who in turn reported to Paul Kaikaris.  Under this arrangement she worked for two years without incident.

 

On April 15, 2015, Tinsley emailed Kaikaris and asked to be removed from the FPP because her family obligations changed, and her many work responsibilities were causing her to be stressed beyond what she was physically able to handle.  On May 4, 2015 Kaikaris and Clendenon met with Tinsley and reassigned some of her projects to another employee in response to her concerns.  Tinsley later wrote in an email to HR that this reassignment “greatly reduced” her stress.

 

Approximately two months later, in early July, Kaikaris and Clendenon met with Tinsley informally to explain that they were concerned with her recent performance at work.  She was not following the prescribed methodology for completing her work, the quality of her work was sub-par, and she had been leaving work early without prior approval.  During her formal mid-year review a week later, Tinsley received a rating of “Did Not Meet Performance Expectations” based on the issues raised at the earlier informal meeting.  Despite the rating Kaikaris noted in the review that he believed Tinsley’s performance issues were an “anomaly” and she could “return to an expected level of performance by year-end” with the implementation of an action plan.

 

On August 14, Kaikaris provided Tinsley with a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) which she refused to sign because she disagreed with it and she did not feel she had been assessed accurately.  She believed that Kaikaris provided her a poor rating only because she had complained to him during a routine meeting in early July that she didn’t approve of her co-workers bouncing stress balls off the ground.

 

After she refused to sign the PIP, Tinsley notified HR regarding the stress she was feeling due to the workload and work hours of her position, her purportedly inaccurate midyear review, and the “hostile work environment” created by the horseplay of her co-workers bouncing stress balls off the ground.  She also asked to be restored to her former manager that she reported to prior to her move to the FPP team.  She indicated that she felt Kaikaris’ demeanor changed toward her after she complained about the bouncing balls and that she felt she couldn’t continue to work under him.

 

Tinsley began a practice of submitting doctor’s notes and successive requests for medical leave based on “mental and emotional duress brought on by over-excessive workload, unrealistic deadlines, a hostile work environment, and a manager’s reckless indifference to her mental and emotional well-being”.  She took a medical leave of absence from September 2 to October 7, 2015.  When her doctor cleared her to return to work at full capacity, he provided her a note that recommended that she return to work in a different work environment and specifically under a different manager.

 

In lieu of assigning her to a different manager, the organization approved her request to take an additional eight weeks of medical leave, starting October 9th.  In December, Tinsley requested additional medical leave and a new supervisor, but Caterpillar denied those requests.  On January 7, 2016 Caterpillar informed Tinsley that they could not accommodate her medical condition and that they did not believe that her request for a transfer to a different supervisor was necessary or reasonable.  Tinsley again asked for additional leave in which she was told that she was expected to return to work.  At this point, Tinsley quit indicating that Caterpillar had given her no other choice.  Tinsley filed a complaint against Caterpillar alleging that they violated the ADA for not providing reasonable accommodation and retaliated against her for making an FMLA claim.

 

Upon review, the district court found that Tinsley was not disabled pursuant to the ADA because she was not substantially impaired from working in a broad category of jobs and that she did not provide sufficient evidence to maintain her retaliation claim.  Tinsley then appealed that decision to the Sixth Circuit Court who affirmed summary judgment in favor of Caterpillar on Tinsley’s ADA claim.  The court determined that Tinsley could not perform her job simply because of her supervisor’s management style.  Her argument was that she was substantially limited in the major life activity of working, but because she didn’t prove she was substantially limited in performing “either a class of jobs or broad range of jobs in various classes” she was not eligible for ADA relief.  The Sixth Circuit Court did reverse the district’s court’s order granting summary judgment on the FMLA retaliation claim and has remanded it for further consideration.

 

This case is a good lesson for employers to do their due diligence with ADA requests to ensure they meet the criteria of being disabled under the ADA. 

 

 

Additional ASE Resources

Americans with Disabilities Act – This ASE training course explains how to recognize and successfully administer ADA issues in order to comply with and avoid litigation under the ADA.  The next class is Wednesday, May 15.  Learn more or register here.

Please login or register to post comments.

Filter:

Filter by Authors

Position your organization to THRIVE.

Become a Member Today