Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—E.D. Mich.: Employer prevails against employee’s disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation claims, (Aug 21, 2025)

By Steven D. Cole, J.D.

The county employee was not a qualified individual under the ADA, and the evidence did not suggest that his employer unreasonably failed to accommodate his disabilities, retaliated against him, or created a hostile work environment.

A federal district court in Michigan granted a motion for summary judgment in favor of an employer against an employee’s claims of discrimination and retaliation. The employer terminated the employee after granting him more than one year of medical leave, stating that it was unable to continue holding a position vacant or providing indefinite leave due to its operational demands. The employee alleged that the employer’s actions violated provisions of the ADA, Michigan Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA), Michigan Workers’ Disability Compensation Act (WDCA), and Michigan Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act (PWDCRA). The court found that the employee failed to proffer sufficient evidence to advance his claims (Haack v. Lapeer County Road Commission, No. 23-12273 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 19, 2025)).

Work-related injury. The employee was seriously injured in a work-related automobile accident while serving as a district foreman on April 21, 2021. He returned to work in early May on a light-duty basis with a driving restriction. In June, the employee, along with two union representatives, met with a supervisor and the Human Resources Director to discuss accommodations for attending physical and occupational therapy appointments. The employee indicated that he could not attend these appointments after work because he was too exhausted, noting that he sometimes felt the need to take naps during working hours, which he would do on a dead-end road in his vehicle. Citing safety concerns, the employer thereafter prohibited the employee from driving at work until he could undergo an independent medical examination.

On June 30, 2021, the employee submitted a doctor’s note indicating that he should be off work until being re-evaluated after having lumbar x-rays. The employer provided the requested medical leave, which it then extended numerous times based on subsequent doctor’s notes. In late 2021, the employer promoted another individual to the position of district foreman until the employee was ready to return.

Leave extension denied. On August 17, 2022, the employer informed the employee that it would not be extending his leave indefinitely and that it expected him to return to work on August 25, 2022, when his most recent doctor’s note expired. Instead, the employee submitted another doctor’s note, and the employer denied his request to extend his leave for an additional six weeks. The employer asked the employee if he needed an alternative accommodation which would allow him to perform his job, but the employee did not offer any suggestions, believing that his union contract entitled him to 24 months of unpaid medical leave.

Termination. On September 1, 2022, the employer terminated the employee’s employment, stating that it was unable to continue holding a position vacant or provide indefinite leave due to “operational demands.” The employee filed this suit in September 2023, alleging claims for discrimination and failure to accommodate under the ADA, retaliation under the ADA and Michigan statutory law, and hostile work environment. The employer moved for summary judgment on all claims.

Discrimination claim. The employee did not state a prima facie case of disability discrimination because was not considered a “qualified individual” under the ADA. The doctor’s notes indicated that he was not medically cleared to return to work, and the ADA only protects those who “with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires.” 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8). And according to the Supreme Court, “a plaintiff’s sworn assertion that [he] is unable to work will appear to negate an essential element of [his] ADA case.” Stanley v. City of Sanford, 145 S. Ct. 2058, 2063 (2025) (citing Cleveland v. Policy Mgmt. Sys. Corp., 526 U.S. 795, 119 S. Ct. 1597 (1999)). Aside from this, it was “not clear that the posting and filling of Plaintiff’s position constituted an adverse employment action.”

Failure to accommodate. Contrary to the employee’s contention that the employer should have accommodated him by providing additional leave, the ADA does not require an employer to provide leave of an indefinite duration. “When, as here, an employer has already provided a substantial leave, an additional leave period of a significant duration, with no clear prospects for recovery, is an objectively unreasonable accommodation.”

Retaliation claim. The employee alleged that his filing of workers’ compensation claims and taking of medical leave were protected activities, and that his subsequent termination violated the anti-retaliation provisions of the ADA, WPA, and WDCA. But the employee failed to demonstrate a causal connection between his alleged protected activity and his termination. For instance, there was no evidence that any County decisionmaker reacted negatively to the employee’s leave or harbored discriminatory animus. And even if the employee could demonstrate a causal connection, he did not show that the employer’s stated reason for terminating his employment was pretextual.

Hostile work environment. In his claim for hostile work environment under the PWDCRA, the employee alleged that his supervisor subjected him to “unwelcome disability-related words and conduct,” specifically at “the humiliating meeting where [the Supervisor] bullied Plaintiff in front of others and took away his driving privileges.” In support of this claim, the employee cited a union representative’s testimony that she considered the supervisor to be “aggressive” and “bullying... to a degree” during the meeting. The employee also alleged that he was “called repeatedly, texted repeatedly, and emailed repeatedly several times in one day.” The text messages submitted into evidence were, however, “objectively innocuous” and did not suggest disability-related animus. Ultimately, the court concluded that the conduct at the meeting and the subsequent messages about which the employee complained were “neither based upon disability nor sufficiently severe or pervasive to constitute a hostile work environment.”

The case is No. 23-12273.

Judge: Behm, F.

Attorneys: Dean T. Yeotis (Law Offices of Dean T. Yeotis) for Joe Haack. Andrew A. Cascini (Henn Lesperance PLC) for Lapeer County Road Commission and Zebadiah Schons.

Companies: Lapeer County Road Commission

Cases: Discrimination DisabilityDiscrimination Retaliation Discharge EmployeeLeave MichiganNews