Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca6-24-01390/USCOURTS-ca6-24-01390-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Anthony Bair
Appellant
Crystal Glass, Inc.
Appellee

Document Text:

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION

File Name: 24a0476n.06

No. 24-1390

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

ANTHONY BAIR,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

CRYSTAL GLASS, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED 

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 

THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF 

MICHIGAN

OPINION

Before: BATCHELDER, GRIFFIN, and WHITE, Circuit Judges.

ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. Anthony Bair sued his former employer, 

Crystal Glass, Inc., for disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). 

The district court awarded summary judgment to Crystal Glass on all claims, and Bair now appeals. 

We affirm.

Anthony Bair suffered from “avascular necrosis” in his right hip—a debilitating condition 

that results from the death of one’s bone tissue. Soon after beginning his fourth stint as a glass 

worker with Crystal Glass, Bair told Crystal Glass that his health had begun to decline. That is, 

the pain in Bair’s hip became worse and worse until he could no longer perform any labor-intensive 

jobs. Bair eventually asked Crystal Glass to assign him lighter work, which Crystal Glass 

immediately agreed to do.

Twelve days later, Bair informed Crystal Glass that his condition required surgery and that 

he would need time off to recover. He then asked Crystal Glass if he could go on short-term 

Case: 24-1390 Document: 20-2 Filed: 12/03/2024 Page: 1
No. 24-1390, Bair v. Crystal Glass

-2-

disability. When Crystal Glass responded that it did not have short-term disability and offered him 

unpaid short-term leave, Bair asked Crystal Glass to lay him off instead so that he could receive 

unemployment benefits, which Michigan had enhanced at the time due to COVID-19. Crystal 

Glass did so and advised Bair that it would not rehire him until he provided a doctor’s note clearing 

him for work. The parties do not dispute that Bair never gave Crystal Glass any doctor’s note.

Because Crystal Glass did not rehire him, Bair sued for disability discrimination, 

retaliation, and failure to accommodate under the ADA. While Bair conceded that he did indeed

ask to be laid off, he maintained that Crystal Glass should have understood that what he really 

wanted was unpaid medical leave. The district court disagreed, however, and awarded Crystal 

Glass summary judgment on all Bair’s claims. In the district court’s view, Bair’s claims failed 

because he “received the exact disability accommodation that he requested: a voluntary lay off, 

which would have qualified him for unemployment [benefits] under then-existing law.” On 

appeal, Bair argues that the district court mischaracterized the facts and misapplied the law.

After carefully reviewing the record, the law, and the parties’ briefs on appeal, we conclude 

that the district court correctly set out the law and the facts, and that it correctly applied the law to 

those facts. The district court correctly held that because Bair asked to be laid off, Bair could not 

identify the necessary adverse employment action for his discrimination and retaliation claims. 

And although the district court also included Bair’s failure-to-accommodate claim in that 

requirement, its opinion clearly held that the claim independently failed because Bair received the 

accommodation that he requested. The issuance of a full written opinion by this Court would serve 

no useful purpose. For the reasons stated in the district court’s opinion, we AFFIRM.

Case: 24-1390 Document: 20-2 Filed: 12/03/2024 Page: 2