Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—6th Cir.: Employee with history of TIAs failed to establish disability discrimination claims, (Apr 15, 2026)

By Nicholas Kaster, J.D.

Under Sixth Circuit precedent, the fact that an employee does not have a disability obviates an employer’s obligation to provide an accommodation.

An employee with a history of transient ischemic attacks (TIAs) failed to establish that she had been discriminated against on the basis of her disability, the Sixth Circuit ruled in an unpublished opinion, affirming the holding of a federal district court. Whether the employee’s claim was considered an “actual” disability claim or a “regarded as” disability claim was not determinative, said the court. If the employee had an actual disability, she never sought an accommodation for her disability. If the employee’s claim was that her employer “regarded” her as having a disability that she did not have, her failure-to-accommodate claim was likewise barred (Morgan v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, No. 25-3722 (6th Cir. Apr. 14, 2026).

History of TIAs. The employee worked for the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction for over 30 years. She had a history of transient ischemic attacks (TIAs). The employer had actual knowledge of her condition since at least 2014, when she applied for intermittent leave under the FMLA. In that application, her doctor certified her condition and noted that when the employee had a TIA, she would need to be hospitalized. Like all employees, the employee had to renew her FMLA certification annually and her request for accommodation was always the same: hospitalization in the event she suffered a TIA. She never requested any other accommodation.

Administrative leave. From 2014 to 2023 the employee worked without significant disability-related issues, taking intermittent FMLA leave only when she suffered a TIA. But in 2023, her direct supervisor said that the employee had become “increasingly disruptive” and “unprofessional” and was “aggressive” and “hostile” when communicating with co-workers or her supervisor.

That June, the employee was placed on paid administrative leave for her “unprofessional” and “aggressive” conduct and was not allowed to return to work until she had an independent medical exam (IME) to determine if she could perform her essential job functions. The doctor selected by the employer concluded that she was not able to perform the full duties of her job. He determined that the employee was impaired to the degree that she would “require modified work activity in order to return to any occupation, including her former job” and that “resumption of her full duties [was] not advised.”

Options. The employer informed the employee that she could request disability leave, FMLA leave, an accommodation under the ADA, or she could dispute the doctor’s recommendation with an opinion from her own doctor stating that she could “return to work.”

Believing she was not disabled and could continue to perform the duties of her job, the employee stated that she intended to dispute the IME’s conclusion that she could not return to full-duty work. She obtained a note from a nurse practitioner stating that she could return to full duty immediately with no restrictions. However, the employer informed the employee that the note was insufficient and that her paid leave would cease, unless she submitted a medical opinion that indicated that the doctor had reviewed the IME and agreed or disagreed with the IME’s recommendations. The employee’s last day of paid administrative leave was September 25, 2023. She then began using her personal leave-time.

Return to duty. On October 31, the employee was able to obtain a note from a doctor, who stated that the employee “currently does not have any conditions that render her medically disabled” and that she could return to work on November 6, 2023. The employer accepted the note and returned her to full duty without restrictions on that date.

Lawsuit. Subsequently, the employee filed this lawsuit, alleging disability discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act for failure to make a reasonable accommodation and for failure to engage in the required interactive process for identifying an appropriate accommodation. She did not claim any loss of pay but sought economic damages for the use and loss of her personal leave-time from September 28 to November 6, 2023. A federal district court in Ohio granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment and the current appeal ensued.

“Regarded as.” In granting summary judgment, the district court held that the employee: (1) failed to request an accommodation; and (2) abandoned the interactive process. The court assumed, as did the Sixth Circuit, that the employee’s TIAs qualified as a disability. But the district court noted that her failure-to-accommodate claim was not a prototypical case where an employee asserts a disability, asks for an accommodation which the employer refuses to give, and then sues for failure to accommodate. Instead, the court held that the employee’s claim was more like a “regarded as” disability claim in that she claimed that the employer failed to provide accommodations that she actually did not need but which the employer believed she needed.

The district court held that in “regarded as” cases, an employee is not entitled to a reasonable accommodation. The court held even if the employee’s claims were based on an actual disability, she did not request an accommodation (other than leave for going to a hospital after a TIA event) and said she did not need an accommodation to perform her job duties. In fact, the employee provided a doctor’s note stating that she was physically able to perform her duties.

Agreeing with the district court, the Sixth Circuit noted that, before filing suit, the employee always maintained that she was not disabled. She was upset because the employer regarded her as disabled. The employee never claimed she was disabled and never asked for an accommodation. She was unwavering in her belief that she could perform her job, that she did not have a disability, and that she did not need an accommodation. However, she argued that the employer discriminated against her because of her “actual” disability by failing to follow the doctor’s recommendation in the IME for further neurological testing to determine the extent of her disability and appropriate accommodation. In other words, the employee argued that the employer failed to conduct an individualized assessment of her actual medical condition and of the impact that condition would have on her specific job requirements.

Type of claim not determinative. Whether the employee’s claim is considered an “actual” disability claim or a “regarded as” disability claim is not determinative, the Sixth Circuit said. Under either type of disability claim, the employer prevails as a matter of law.

If the employee had an actual disability, she never sought an accommodation for her disability. The employer gave the employee the option of seeking an accommodation through the ADA, but the employee chose to challenge the IME’s findings regarding her deficient cognitive abilities. In claiming that she did not have a disability and challenging the IME, the employee opted out of the interactive process and individualized assessment involved in determining a reasonable accommodation for a disability. The employee submitted a doctor’s opinion stating that she was able to perform the duties of the job and could return to work without an accommodation. She never claimed she was disabled, disputed the results of the IME, and never requested an accommodation for a disability she believed she did not have.

Failure-to-accommodate claim. If the employee’s claim is that the employer “regarded” her as having a disability that she did not have, her failure-to-accommodate claim is likewise barred, the appeals court concluded. The Sixth Circuit has held that the fact that an employee does not have a disability obviates an employer’s obligation to provide an accommodation. Applying this precedent, if the employee’s claim was that the employer wrongly perceived or had a mistaken belief that she had a disability and treated her adversely, the employer could not at the same time have an obligation to accommodate a disability that she did not have.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court was affirmed.

The case is No. 25-3722.

Judge: Boggs, D.

Attorneys: Mark P. Herron (The Law Offices of Mark P. Herron, Esq.) for Traniece Morgan. Mathura Jaya Sridharan, Office of the Attorney General, for Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction.

Cases: Discrimination DisabilityDiscrimination PublicEmployees KentuckyNews MichiganNews OhioNews TennesseeNews