Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—W.D. Tenn.: Fired deputy jailer, allergic to cleaning chemicals, advances ADA claims, (May 11, 2026)

By Jason Albright, J.D.

In March 2020, chemical use increased due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

A former deputy jailer for Shelby County, Tennessee, allergic to cleaning chemicals used in the jail and fired following exhaustion of her leave options after the jail increased chemical use during the COVID-19 pandemic, may proceed to trial with her ADA reasonable accommodation and interactive process claims, a federal district court held. There were genuine factual disputes concerning whether she requested reassignment to an open position, including one that was allegedly available to overtime workers and could qualify as a reasonable accommodation. And her failure to fill out the employer’s mandated “Medical Provider Employee Job Duties Evaluation Form” did not, in and of itself, constitute a failure to comply with the interactive process (Phillips v. Shelby County Government, No. 2:21-cv-02730-BCL-cgc (W.D. Tenn. May 7, 2026)).

Deputy jailer and “Razor Orange.” The plaintiff, according to the court, worked as a deputy jailer for Shelby County from 1998 to 2021. Starting in 2013, she developed severe allergic reactions and asthma attacks triggered by “Razor Orange” and other cleaning chemicals used in the jail.

Medical incidents, transfer requests. Between 2018 and 2020, she suffered multiple medical incidents at work and made numerous requests for a transfer to a safer area, but the county denied them.

Move request, pandemic, increased chemical use. On February 2, 2020, the deputy jailer requested to be moved to the third relief post, which was denied. Then, in March 2020, the jail’s chemical use increased due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Medical Provider Employee Job Duties Evaluation Form. On February 17, 2020, and again on August 17, 2020, the jail’s absence management coordinator sent the deputy jailer a letter enclosing the “Medical Provider Employee Job Duties Evaluation Form” and informing her that she needed to provide the form to her medical provider to complete and return. The deputy jailer never returned the form.

Leave and discharge. She took medical leave in August 2020 and was ultimately terminated in March 2021 after exhausting her leave options.

Lawsuit and decision of Sixth Circuit. Subsequently, she sued in November 2021, and the federal district court initially allowed her to amend her complaint as to her allegations of failure to accommodate under the ADA. She then missed the court-ordered deadline and did not file her amended complaint until October 13, 2022, and on January 9, 2023, the court entered an order striking her amended complaint as untimely and dismissed the remainder of her claims.

She then appealed the dismissal of her claims to the Sixth Circuit, which partially vacated the district court’s dismissal of her action and remanded. The Sixth Circuit held that she failed to timely file a claim for any violations that occurred before January 16, 2020. It determined, however, that her complaint sufficiently alleged that the county violated the ADA during the limitations period because it allegedly denied her a reasonable accommodation by failing or refusing to transfer her to an area where she would not be exposed to cleaning chemicals and disinfectants. The appeals court found that her only viable claims were her “disability-discrimination claim with respect to her termination and the County’s alleged failure to reasonably accommodate her disability during the limitations period.”

Motion for summary judgment. On remand, the employer moved for summary judgment, arguing that she: (1) failed to make a reasonable accommodation request; and (2) failed to engage in the interactive process.

Failure to accommodate. The former employee’s failure to accommodate claim survived the employer’s motion. The employer argued that her request for a job transfer to the third relief post was unreasonable as a matter of law because “the position was not open.” Indeed, when she requested the position on February 2, 2020, the chief responded, “[t]his post will not be opened due to staffing issues[.]” However, the plaintiff argued that, to her knowledge, overtime workers were allowed to work the same third relief post, revealing that it was available, and if a jury were to credit her deposition testimony to that effect, it would find that the third relief position open and thus a potential reasonable accommodation.

The former employee also pointed to evidence that, in May 2020, she requested reassignment to a separate “2nd Floor P&Q” post where she had not previously been exposed to chemicals triggering her claimed disability, and in July 2020, she requested reassignment to “Annex Pods F, G, and H … if it’s available,” with a response indicating that the position would be forwarded to others upon retirement of the apparent incumbent. The employer, in turn, did not address these positions in its motion or even in its reply, much less contend that they were not open.

Viewing the record in the light most favorable to the former deputy jailer, the court thus concluded that there was a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether she requested reassignment to an open position that could qualify as a reasonable accommodation.

Interactive process. Her interactive process claim could likewise go to trial. The employer argued that she failed to engage sufficiently or in good faith with the interactive process because she did not complete and have her medical provider fill out the Medical Provider Employee Job Duties Evaluation Form when the absence management coordinator sent it to her on February 17, 2020, and then again on August 17.

The former deputy jailer, on the other hand, argued that her failure to complete the form was of no moment because she repeatedly explained her disability to the employer over the course of a seven-year period, including in 2020 and including by submitting medical records and reports from doctors. Here, the court observed that the case law describes the extra-statutory procedure at issue as “an informal, interactive process,” a “dialogue,” “to identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.” Brumley v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 909 F.3d 834, 840 (6th Cir. 2018).

Here, the district court reasoned, “A failure to provide an employer with needed information or confirmation (such as from a medical provider) would be a failure to comply with the interactive process; failure to fill out an employer’s mandated form does not, at least not in and of itself.” Based on the record, there was a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the former employee engaged in the required interactive process to establish her ADA claim during the limitations period.

The case is No. 2:21-cv-02730-BCL-cgc.

Judge: Lea, B.

Attorneys: Stephanie Moss (Moss Law Group) for Barbara Phillips. Jasen McCoy Durrence, Shelby County Attorney's Office, for Shelby County Government.

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination PublicEmployees EmployeeLeave Discharge Covid19 TennesseeNews