Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—6th Cir.: Michigan Bell employee allowed to work remotely during pregnancy can’t revive ADA claims, (Jun 9, 2026)

By Kathleen Kapusta, J.D.

She unsuccessfully argued the company had constructively discharged her by forcing her to come to the office to pick up equipment and issuing her a counseling discipline.

Affirming summary judgment against the ADA claims of a Michigan Bell employee who alleged she was constructively discharged when, after being allowed to work from home during her pregnancy, she was forced to come into the office to pick up equipment and was issued an attendance counseling for absences, the Sixth Circuit, in an unpublished decision, found she failed to show she was subjected to an adverse employment action. As to her failure-to-accommodate claim, though she contended she was at increased risk of COVID-19, there was no evidence she was disabled within in the meaning of the ADA (Smith v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co., No. 25-1946 (6th Cir. June 4, 2026, unpublished)).

Accommodation request. Despite the employee’s “extensive leave of absence history,” Michigan Bell, in May 2021, approved, as an ADA accommodation, her request while pregnant to work from home through her late August delivery date. In support of her request, her physician recommended that she limit her commute time to less than four hours and work from home to decrease her risk of exposure to COVID-19. By being pregnant, he wrote, “she is more at risk and considered immune compromised.” He also noted that “all pregnant patients are at risk for blood clots.”

Absence counseling. The employee experienced difficulties receiving her work equipment, including cords that had to be mailed to her at a later date. She also struggled to log into her computer. When she went to the office to retrieve some equipment, a manager conducted an attendance action plan with her to discuss her absences and issued her an attendance counseling for unapproved absences in 2020 and 2021. She did not receive any further discipline.

Resigned. In February 2023, the employee accepted a full-time job with a municipality but did not inform Michigan Bell until she voluntarily resigned in April.

Lower court proceedings. She then sued Michigan Bell for discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation in violation of the ADA. The district court granted summary judgment to the company against all claims.

Adverse action. Affirming the lower court’s judgment as to the employee’s discrimination and retaliation claims, the appeals court found she failed to establish an adverse employment action. In support of her assertion she had been constructively discharged, she pointed to the lack of necessary equipment to work from home, being forced to come into the office to retrieve equipment, and being issued a counseling warning after her extended leaves of absence. But that, said the court, “is a far cry from intolerable.”

A reasonable person, the court observed, would not feel compelled to quit after having to come into the office on one occasion to retrieve equipment to be able to work from home. “By contrast, this court has said that sexual assault, reduction in salary, and harassment are examples of conditions that would make a workplace ‘intolerable.’”

And as to her contention the attendance counseling made her workplace intolerable, the court explained that “an employer’s critique specifically about an employee’s attendance is insufficient to establish constructive discharge.” She also seemed to ignore that her approved accommodation of working from home during her pregnancy “did not encompass the behavior for which she was disciplined,” the court explained, noting that this included refusing to work at all even before she requested the accommodation.

Finally, the court, in affirming summary judgment against this claim, pointed to the fact she continued to work for two years after being subjected to the alleged intolerable workplace.

Failure to accommodate. Affirming summary judgment against her failure-to-accommodate claim as well, the court found the employee failed to establish she was disabled. While she argued that her increased risk of infection to COVID-19 qualified as an impairment and substantially limited her major life activities during her accommodation period, her physician noted that her risk was ordinary for pregnant women.

Indeed, said the court, he wrote that “With being pregnant she is more at risk and considered immune compromised for infections... all pregnant patients are at risk for blood clots.” To the court, it was crucial she did not present any evidence “of any type of abnormal or unique pregnancy complication that would render her ‘disabled’ under the ADA.”

The case is No. 25-1946.

Judge: Bush, J.

Attorneys: Carla D. Aikens (Law Offices of Carla D. Aikens) for Maria Smith. Maurice Baskin (Littler Mendelson) for Michigan Bell Telephone Company.

Companies: Michigan Bell Telephone Company

Cases: PregnancyDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge KentuckyNews MichiganNews OhioNews TennesseeNews