Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—E.D. Tenn.: Baling operator, fired after seeking long-term disability for carpal tunnel, advances claims, (Oct 15, 2025)

By Todd Harrison, J.D.

Although he had been out on short-term disability for nearly six months, the employer nonetheless provided him with long-term disability paperwork, creating the inference that this would remedy his condition.

Largely denying Eastman Chemical Company’s motion for summary judgment against the ADA failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, discrimination, and retaliation claims brought by a former employee, a federal district court in Tennessee determined that long-term disability could constitute a reasonable accommodation so long as the employer believed that this solution would enable the employee to return to work. Here, the employee’s medical provider stated that his limitations were temporary, and the fact that he was offered paperwork to apply for long-term disability prior to being fired created an inference that the employer believed the condition was temporary as well. However, summary judgment was granted against his failure to accommodate claim insofar as it concerned reassignment to a different position (Canipe v. Eastman Chemical Company, No. 2:24-CV-00092-DCLC-CRW (E.D. Tenn. Oct. 14, 2025)).

In July 2022, the employee was hired to work as an entry-level baling operator, a position requiring, among other things, the frequent lifting of up to 20 pounds, and the repetitive pushing and pulling of 30 to 40 pounds.

Short-term disability. Days into his training, the employee began experiencing numbness and tingling in his fingers. He was diagnosed with bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and required surgery. Under the employer’s short-term disability policy, he took paid leave from August 25, 2022, until his medical provider cleared him to return to work on February 10, 2023.

Restrictions. Upon returning to work, the employee realized he lacked the strength in his hands to perform his duties. On February 13, his medical provider temporarily restricted him from lifting, pushing, or pulling more than 10 pounds in the workplace.

Reassignment requests. After he was placed on medical restrictions, the employee requested reassignment to another entry-level position in a different department. His request was denied because no other position involved the lifting, pushing, or pulling of less than 10 pounds. He also asked if he could work as a tow-feeder operator until he regained the strength in his hands. However, this position also involved the ability to lift up to 20 pounds, and was not considered a separate, standalone job from that of a baling operator. Rather, it was a duty reserved for those who had proven themselves as baling operators for at least three months. As such, this request was also denied.

Long-term disability. With the employee’s short-term disability benefits set to expire on February 22, he met with an employee benefits analyst at the company sometime around February 15. She offered him long-term disability. He completed the paperwork and delivered it to his medical provider. However, his employment was terminated on February 23, the day after his short-term disability benefits expired. Subsequently, he filed this lawsuit.

Failure to reassign. First, the court addressed the employee’s failure to accommodate claims, beginning with his request for reassignment to a vacant position or to a different position as a reasonable accommodation. Although the employer had a duty under the ADA to consider transferring the employee to a new position, the record established that he was unqualified for any other position.

Both an entry-level job in another department and the position of tow-feed operator required the lifting, pushing, or pulling of more than 10 pounds. In fact, the record established that all of the employer’s entry-level positions required the lifting of more than 10 pounds. Because the employee’s limitations prevented him from lifting more than 10 pounds, no reasonable jury could find that he was qualified for any entry-level position. Thus, he had failed to meet his burden that he was otherwise qualified for a different entry-level position, and the court granted summary judgment against this claim insofar as it concerned reassignment.

Failure to provide long-term disability. As to the employee’s contention that his request for long-term disability was another proposed reasonable accommodation, the court agreed.

“When an employee’s requested accommodation is medical leave, he must show that he would be otherwise qualified to perform his job’s essential functions when he returned to work,” explained the court. However, continued the court, a request for medical leave is not objectively reasonable if an employee has already received significant amounts of leave and has demonstrated no clear prospects for recovery.

In this instance, although the employee remained on short-term disability leave for nearly six months, the employer had nonetheless offered him long-term disability when he requested the necessary paperwork, creating the reasonable inference that the employer believed long-term disability would remedy his condition. In addition, his medical provider stated that his limitations were temporary.

“A reasonable jury could therefore conclude that he had clear prospects for recovery and would have been otherwise qualified to perform his job’s essential functions after receiving long-term disability as an accommodation from Eastman,” said the court, finding a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether he was otherwise qualified for his position and whether the employer had failed to provide him with a reasonable accommodation.

Interactive process. As an offshoot of the employee’s failure-to-accommodate claim, his claim for failure to engage in the interactive process depended on whether his failure-to-accommodate claim was viable. Because he had established his prima facie case for failure to accommodate, the court rejected the employer’s contention that he could not pursue this claim and denied its motion for summary judgment.

Disability discrimination. Turning to the employee’s claim for disability discrimination, the court noted that although the employee had failed to make a prima facie showing that he was otherwise qualified for an entry-level position, he had made a prima facie showing that he would have been otherwise qualified to perform his job’s essential functions after receiving long-term disability. Thus, the burden shifted to the employer to show a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its decision to terminate the employee, which it satisfied by stating that the employee had a poor performance record, was unable to perform the essential functions of his job and that a reasonable accommodation was not available.

Shifting the burden back to the employee to show pretext, he attested that “never received any criticism of either the pace or quality of [his] work” during his employment. Based on this factual dispute over whether his performance was adequate, a reasonable jury could conclude that the employer’s proffered reason for termination—poor performance—was pretextual.

As to the employer’s second proffered reason—the supposed unavailability of a reasonable accommodation—it conceded that it provides long-term disability, which, as explained previously, is a reasonable accommodation, and that it offered long-term disability to the employee only to terminate him while his paperwork was pending. This too could lead a jury to find the employer’s proffered reason to be pretextual, and summary judgment was denied on the claim for disability discrimination.

Retaliation. Finally, the court considered the employee’s claim for retaliation. Here, the employee cited the close temporal proximity between his seeking leave and his termination. The court found this sufficient to establish his prima facie case, noting that the eight-day span between his request for long-term disability and his termination would permit a reasonable jury to find that a causal connection existed between these two events. Accordingly, summary judgment was also denied as to this claim.

The case is No. 2:24-CV-00092-DCLC-CRW.

Judge: Corker, C.

Attorneys: Emily Costanzo (Employment and Commerce Law Group) for Joshua Canipe. Lucille Lattimore Nelson (Ogletree Deakins) for Eastman Chemical Co.

Companies: Eastman Chemical Co.

Cases: Discrimination DisabilityDiscrimination Discharge Retaliation TennesseeNews GCNNews