NOT RE CO M M E NDE D F OR F UL L
- T E XT P UB L I CA T I ON Fi l e N ame: 08a0272n. 06 Fi l ed: M ay16, 2008 N o. 07- 3825 UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT
DI ANE BE NAUGH , Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee,
v. OHI O C I VI L RI GHT S CO M M I S S I ON, D e f e n d a n t-A p p e llan t. O n A ppeal fr om t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he Sout hern D i s t r i ctof O hi o at C in c in n a ti

/ B efore: G U Y , S U H R H E IN R IC H , an d G IB B O N S , C i rcu i t Jud ges. R A L P H B . G U Y , J R ., C ir c u it J u d g e . Pl ai nt i ff D i ane Benaugh pr evai l ed att r i al agai ns tt he def

endantO hi o C i vi l R i ght s C om m i s s i on ( O C R C ) on hercl ai m of empl oy m ent di s cr i m i nat i on i n vi ol at i on of t he R ehabi l i t at i on A ct , 29 U
. S
. C
. § 7 94. T he j ur yaw ar ded plai nti ff $ 58 , 30 9 in lo stw ages an d b enef i t s, and $1 0, 00 0 in ot her com pen sat orydam ages. T he ca s e comes befor e us on t he O C R C ’ s appea l fr om t he deni al of i t s m ot i on forj udgm ent
as a mat t erof l aw underFed. R
. C i v. P. 50( b) , ori n t he al t ernat i ve for new t r i al orr emi t t i tur underFed. R
. C i v. P. 59. A ft er r evi ew of t he re cor d and the appl i cabl e l aw , w e af fi r m t he j udgm enti n favorof pl ai nt i ff. I. Pl ai nt i ff D i ane Benaugh w as empl oy ed as a s eni ori nves t i gat orfort he O C R C fr omNo. 07-3825 2

1996 thro u g h O ct ober2003, and w as r es pons i bl e forhandl i ng t he age ncy ’ s m os tcompl ex
a n d se n sitiv e d iscr i m i nati on c a se s. P lain tiff d ra f ted c h a rg e s, in ter v iew e d w itn e ss e s, m e t w ith empl oy er s , and made det er m i nat i ons r egar di ng cl ai m s of di s cr i m i nat i on on behal f of the O C R C
. B yal l acc ount s , B enaugh di d herj ob w el l , r ece i ved good per for m ance r evi ew s , and
wa s a mo n g t h e mo s tp r o d u c t i v e i n v e s t i g a t o r s a tt h e OCRC. B enaugh w as di agnos ed w i t h as t hm a i n 1974 and s ar coi dos i s i n 1996, bot h of w hi ch
ca u sed sh o rt n ess o f b rea th an d d ifficu ltyb rea thing
. S arc o ido sis w a s d e s cribe d b yD r. B aughman, pl ai nt i ff’ s t r eat i ng phy s i ci an, as an i nfl amm at or y pr oces s t hat l eave s s cart i s s ue
orfi br os i s i n t he l ungs . Pl ai nt i ff’ s as t hm a w as t r i gger ed byextr eme changes i n t emper atur e, in p a rticu lar c o ld a ir. D r. B a u g h m a n te s ti f ie d th a t a c h a n g e o f

1 0 o r 1 5 d e g re e s g e n e ra lly
m a y b e su f

f icie n t to trig g e r a n a sth m a a ttac k . B o th c o n d iti o n s w e re tre a ted o v e r tim e w ith
m anyof t he s ame m edi cat i ons
— i ncl udi ng or al m edi cat i on, inhal ed medi cat i ons , bur s t s of P redni sone, and an t i biot i cs. P lain tiff w a s p a rt o f

th e O C R C ’s C in c in n a ti R e g io n a l O f f ice , w h ich w a s lo c a te d in a bui l di ng t hathad i nt er i oroffi ces and ext er i oroffi ces . O n ly the ext er i oroffi ces had
w i ndow s t hatopened a nd i ndi vi dual heat i ng and cool i ng uni t s l i ke one t hat m i ghtbe found i n a hot el r oom . Pl ai nt i ff w or ked fort he fi r s t3 1⁄2 y ear s in an inter i oroffi ce, unt i l anot her empl oy ee’ s r et i r ement al l ow ed pl ai nt i ff t o m ove i nt o an ext er i oroffi ce i n M ayorJ une 2000. In D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 0 , h o w e v e r, m a n a g e m e n t d e c id e d to m o v e O C R C e m p lo y e e s c lo se r to th e ir
s uper vi s or s , and pl ai nt i ff w as as s i gned t o one of the s m al l es ti nt er i or offi ces . Pl ai nt i ff ha d exper i ence d a w or s eni ng of her s ar coi dos i s dur i ng 2000, and r eques t ed thats he be a l l ow edNo. 07-3825 3

t o s t ayi n an ext er i oroffi ce. D r . B aughman pr ovi ded a not e s t at i ng t hatpl ai nt i ff ne eded “cl i m at e contr ol ” bec aus e “c hanges in t emper atur e ca n caus e exa cerbat i on of her
s ar coi dos i s . ” The r eques tw as d en ied by an EE O offi cer , w ho r ecomm ended thats he be pr ovi ded a s pace heat eri ns t ead. Pl ai nt i ff t ook and us ed a s pace heat er s t ar t i ng i n D ece m ber2000, and r an i ty ear - r ound b e c a u se th e re w a s n o h e a t in h e r o f f ice in w in ter a n d th e a ir-c o n d iti o n in g ra n f u ll b las t in
s um m er . B eca us e us i ng t he s pace heat erw oul d bl ow s om e of the el ectr i cal fus es , pl ai nt i ff had t o pl ace i ton a t abl e di r ect l ybehi nd her
. Pl ai nt i ff’ s s ar coi dos i s w or s ened, exce ptdur i ng a four
- m ont h t r i al of a medi cat i on cal l ed R emi cade b etw een Februaryand J une 2002. A l t hough herl ung capa ci t yi m pr oved w i t h R emi cade , s he coul d notcont i nue thatt r eatm ent beca us e the cos tw as pr ohi bi t i ve and w as notcover ed byi ns ur ance . A ft ert hatt r eatm ent
e n d e d , B e n a u g h e x p e rie n c e d m o re sh o rtn e ss o f b re a th a n d w a s m o re su sc e p tib le to
res pir at oryi nfec t i on s. A ft era s ever e as t hm a att ack i n J ul y2002, pl ai nt i ff a s ked t o be moved t o an off i ce
w i t h a cl i m at e contr ol uni t . Pl ai nt i ff as ked t he new r egi onal di r ect or , J ean M cEnt i r e, t o be
m ov ed to an ex t eri or office i n A ug ust20 02 and again i n N o v e m b e r 20 02
. B oth t i m es, M cE n ti re s ai d s he w oul d “l ook i nt o i t . ” Pl ai nt i ff c ont i nued t o exper i ence br eathi ng pr obl ems, and di s cus s ed her us e of the s pace heat erw i t h D r . B aughman i n D ece m ber2002. A l t hough D r. B au g h m an bel i eved pl ai nt i ff t o be perm anent l ydi s abl ed att hatt i m e, he
s uppor t ed pl ai nt i ff’ s deci s i on t o cont i nue w or ki ng. Pl ai nt i ff e xpl ai ned t hat s he l oved herj ob and nee ded t he i ncome t o s uppor ther s el f and he rt hr ee da ught er s . D r . B aughman advi s edNo. 07-3825 4

pl ai nt i ff a nd t he O C R C t hats he s houl d s t op us i ng t he s pace heat ert o avoi d dr yai r , and need ed to avo i d ex t rem es of h ot and co l d tem peratures. In Ja n u ary2 0 0 3 , p lai n ti ff return ed the s p ac e h ea ter to h er su p erv isor, alon g w ith D r. B aughman’ s not e, and w ai t ed for ot heracc om m odat i on. She cont i nued t o w or k i n heroffi ce,
w hi ch had n o h ea t. S h e w or e hercoat , hat , and gl oves , and puta bl anketon herl ap. M c E n tire a c k n o w led g e d k n o w in g th a t p lain tiff w a s c o ld , b u t d e n ied k n o w in g th a t th e c o ld af fe cted h er m ed ical co n d it ion
. A n ex ch an g e o f e m ail s o n Jan u ary6 , 2 0 0 3 , h o w ev er,
s ugges t s t hatM cEnt i r e w as aw ar e thatpl ai nt i ff w as r eques t i ng a cl i m at e contr ol l ed off i ce a s
an ac co m m o d ati o n . In th o se e m ail s, p lai n ti ff ’s co w o rke r, S h aro n G ri ff in, adv ised M cE n ti re that sh e w as w il li n g to m o v e to m ak e h er e x teri o r o ff ice av ail ab le to plainti ff
. M cE n ti re’s
r es pons e t o G r i ffi n w as t hat no fi nal deci s i on had bee n m ade a bouts w i t chi ng offi ces ar ound, t hatot herpos s i bl e off

i ces w er e bei ng cons i der ed, a n d tha ts he s houl d notdi s m ant l e her
o f f ice y e t. H ear i ng not hi ng m or e, pl ai nt i ff f i l ed an EE O C char ge i n February 2003, compl ai ni ng th a t th e O C R C f

a iled to r e a so n a b lya c c o m m o d a te h e r d isa b ili tyw h ile a t lea st o n e c lim a te contr ol l ed off

i ce r emai ned v aca nt . O ne ext er i oroffi ce, r efe r r ed t o as t he “pl ant ” off i ce,
rem aine d v ac an t th rou g h o u t al l th e re leva n t t im e pe ri o d s an d w as u sed b ya c o w o rke r t o store and gr ow hous epl ant s . L at eri n 2003, one orm or e otherext er i or o ff ices w er e al s o l eft
v a c a n t.At a me e t i n g i n M a r c h 2 0 0 3 , c a l l e d t o c o u n s e l p l a i n t i f f a b o u t a p a t t e r n o f

a b s e n t e e i s m, pl ai nt i ff w as as ked aboutt he EE O C char ge. Pl ai nti ff s ai d s he w ant ed t o be moved t o anNo. 07-3825 5

o f f ice w h e re sh e w o u ld n o t b e f re e z in g a ll d a y , a n d M c E n tire ag a in sa id sh e w o u ld lo o k in to i t . A l s o pr es ent at t he m eet i ng w er e N or m an G i bs on, pl ai nt i ff’ s di r ects uper vi s or , and D i ane G ait h er-T h o m p so n , the c h ief su p erv isor. I n M a y2 0 0 3 , M c E n tir e p ro p o s e d a c h a n g e o f o f f ic e s to p la in tif

f. S p e c if

ic a l l y, p lain tiff w o u ld m o v e b a c k in to th e e x ter io r o f f ice sh e h a d p re v io u slyo c c u p ied , an d B e tty R o b erso n w o u ld m o v e f rom that o ff

ice to a n em p tyex teri o r of fice n ea r M cE n ti re. Plainti ff ’s i m m edi at e r es pons e w as t o ques t i on w hether t he cl i m at e contr ol uni tneede d t o be cl eane d fi r s t , w hi ch M cEnt i r e r epor t ed t o ot her s as a re j ect i on of t he accomm odat i on. W i t hi n a fe w day s of t hi s offe r , pl ai nt i ff w as t aken fr om w or k t o t he hos pi t al w i t h a s ever e as t hm a att ack. W hen pl ai nt i ff r etur ned, M cEnt i r e s entan emai l as ki ng pl ai nt i ff t o “conf i rm the s t atus of [h er] ac ce p tanc e of the of fice sp ac e” ; ac k n o w ledg ing p lai n ti ff ’s co n ce rn th at t h e tem p era ture contr ol uni t m ay be m ol dy ; and i ndi cat i ng t hat M cEnt i r e w oul d have mai nt enanc e cl ean the
u n i t . M c E n t i r e a s k e d t o b e i n f o r m e d o f p l a i n t i f f ’ s d e c i s i o n t h a td a y. P lain tiff se n t an e m a il i n re sp o n se , d a ted M a y2 9 , 2 0 0 3 , su g g e stin g th a t sh e sh o u ld
m ove i nt o t he vac ant offi ce i ns t ead of R ober s on beca us e the cl i m at e contr ol uni thad bee n
us ed l es s and mi ght have few erpol l ut ant s ; ques t i oni ng w hethert he mai nt enanc e per s onnel
w er e com pet ent t o pr oper l y cl ean t he uni t i n R ober s on’ s offi ce; and as ki ng t o be i nfor m ed
o f w h a t cle a n in g p ro d u c ts w e re to b e u se d
. P lain tiff a lso sa id sh e w o u ld n e e d to c o n f e r w ith l egal couns el befor e re achi ng a fi nal deci s i on, but t es t i fi ed att r i al t hatt hi s l as tr emar k w as
s i m p l y“bl uffi ng. ” M cEnt i r e forw ar ded thi s r es pons e t o ot her s i n m anage m ent , comm ent i ng: “I tneverends ! ” A l t hough t her e i s evi dence t hat M cE n ti re i nqui r ed and de t er m i ned t hatNo. 07-3825 6

m ai nt enanc e coul d cl ean the uni t , no i nfor m at i on about t hatw as comm uni cat ed t o pl ai nt i ff
a ta n y t i m e b e f

o r e p l a i n t i f

f w e n to n d i s a b i l i t y. Pl ai nt i f f was c o u n s e l e d i n J u n e 2 0 0 3 a b o u ts a me - d a yl e a v e r e q u e s t s a n d g e t t i ng doct or s ’ not es for s i ck l eave , but s he expl ai ned t hat s he di d notknow i n advanc e w hen s he
w o u ld b e sic k a t w o rk . In Ju ly2 0 0 3 , p lain tiff d isc u ss e d h e r req u e st fo r a c c o m m o d a tio n w ith G i bs on and w as t ol d t hatm anage m entw as s t i l l w or ki ng on i t . A l t hough uns ol i ci t ed, pl ai nt i ff
s entdocument at i on of herdi s abi l i t yt o s ever al O C R C m anage r s i n A ugus t 2003 beca us e t hat inf o rm ati o n h ad n o t b ee n req u ested fro m h er m ed ical p rov iders. P lai n ti ff ex p erien ce d m o re fr equentas t hm a att acks and r es pi r at or yi nfec t i ons . She br oughthernebul i zer t o w or k t o t ake tre a tm e n ts b a c k -to -b a c k w h e n sh e h a d d if f icu ltyb re a th in g o r h a d c o u g h in g f its. P lain tiff

d id herw or k ar ound hert r eatm ent s , w oul d r es chedul e t el ephone int er vi ew s w hen s he w as not fee l i ng w el l , and made as few t r i ps as pos s i bl e t o t he pri nt er beca us e she w oul d have t o s t op
an d lean ag ains t the w all to catch h er brea th. E v en so , p lai n ti ff w as am o n g the in v esti g ators
w i t h t he hi ghes tpr oduct i vi t yi n t he l as tquar t ers he w or ked. Pl ai nt i ff thoughts he mi ght f inallybe movi ng offi ces i n Sept ember 2003, aft ers he l earned fr om R ober s on t hatt he cl i m at e contr ol uni t i n heroffi ce ha d been r epl ace d. W hen not hi ng w as said ab outi t , and af t era s econd e m er gencyr oom vi s i tt hatm ont h, pl ai nt i ff deci ded t hat s he coul d notw or k anothers eas on i n herunheat ed i nt er i oroffi ce. She di d not
w antt o s t op w or ki ng, and t es t i fi ed that sh e b el i eved, havi ng w or ked the pr evi ous ni ne
m o n th s in h e r c o ld o f

f ice , th a t s h e c o u ld h a v e w o rk e d a t lea st a n o th e r y e a r w ith re a so n a b le
acc om m odat i on.No. 07-3825 7

In a n e m a il d a ted S e p tem b e r 29 , 2 0 0 3 , p lain tiff c o n f irm e d th a t sh e w a s te m p o ra rily
c e a s in g p e rf

o rm a n c e o f

h e r j o b “ d u e to re s p ir a to ry d is a b iliti e s , i.e ., S a rc o id o s is a n d A s th m a .” She al s o i ndi cat ed t hats he had f or w ar ded an i ni t i al appl i cat i on fordi s abi l i t yt o per s onnel t hat day , and thataddi t i onal di s abi l i t y appl i cat i ons w oul d fol l ow . Pl ai nt i ff’ s l as tdayof w or k w as O ctob er 3 , 2 0 0 3 , an d sh e w as a p p rov ed fo r disab il ity reti rem en t ben ef it s at 4 0 % o f h er sa lary in Ja n u a ry 2 0 0 4
. T h e lo ss o f in c o m e w a s d if f icu lt, a n d p lain tiff ’s h o u s e w e n t in to for ecl os ur e. T hi s act i on, fi l ed i n M ay2004, as s er t ed cl ai m s fordi s abi l i t ydi s cr i m i nat i on,
r et al i at i on, an d v iola t i ons of s t at e l aw . T he O C R C ’ s m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm entw as gr ant ed i n par t and deni ed i n par t , and t he cas e w as r efe r r ed t o a magi s t r at e j udge fort r i al on t he di s abi l i t y d iscri m inat i on cl ai m , onl y . T r i al w as conduct ed overfi ve day s i n O ct ober 20 06 , and t he j ury returned i t s verdi ct i n favor of pl ai nti ff i n the am ou nt of $58 , 30 9 i n lost
w a g e s a n d b e n e f

its— a n a m o u n t stip u late d to b e th e v a lu e o f p lain tiff ’s sa lar y a n d b e n e f its f o r o n e y e a r— p lu s a n a d d iti o n a l $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 in o th e r c o m p e n sa to ryd a m a g e s. T h e m a g istra te j udge deni ed the O C R C ’s pos t - t r i al m ot i on forj udgm entas a mat t erof l aw , or , i n t he al t ernat i ve, fornew t r i al orr emi t t i tur . T hi s appea l fol l ow ed. II. A . R ul e 50( b) W ai ver A t th e o u tse t, pla in tiff

a rg u e s tha t th e O C R C w a iv e d its rig h t to m a k e a p o st-tria l R u le 50( b) m ot i on forj udgm ent as a m at t er of l aw . R ul e 50( b) pr ovi ded for a r enew ed mot i on for j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw “[i ] f, foranyr eas on, t he court d o es n o tgr anta mot i on forNo. 07-3825 8

jud g m en t as a m att er o f law m ad e at the close o f all the e v iden ce . ” A cc o rdin g ly , this co u rt h a s h e ld th a t a c o u rt c a n “ c o n sid e r a m o tio n f o r ju d g m e n t n o tw ith sta n d in g th e v e rd ict o n ly if t he movi ng par t yhas pr evi ous l ym ade a m ot i on fora di r ect ed ver di ct at t he cl os e of a l l t he evi dence
. ” P or t age I

I v. B r yant P etr ol eum C or

p. , 8 9 9 F
. 2 d 1 5 1 4 , 1 5 2 2 (6 th C ir
. 1 9 9 0 ). H er e, al t hough t he O C R C m ade a R ul e 50( a) m ot i on att he cl os e of pl ai n ti ff’ s cas e, t he
m ot i on w as not r enew ed at t he cl os e of al l of t he evi dence
. A s t he di s t r i ctcour tr ecogni zed, how ever , w e have al s o hel d t hata “tec h n ic al devi at i on fr om R ul e 50( b) ’ s comm and i s not fat al
. ” R i ver vi ew I

nvs . , I nc. v. O t t aw a C m t

y. I m pr ovem ent

C or p. , 8 9 9 F
. 2 d 4 7 4 , 4 7 7 (6th C ir
. 1 9 9 0 ). W i t hout exami ni ng w hether t her e w as a “t echni cal devi at i on, ” the magi s t r at e j udge
r el i ed on t he gener al pr i nci pl e t hat “appl i cat i on of R ul e 50( b) i n anycas e s houl d be exa m i ned i n t he l i ght of t he ac compl i s hm entof [i t s ] par t i cul arpurpos e as w el l as i n t he gene r al cont ext of s ecur i ng a fa i rt r i al for all concer ned i n t he ques tfort rut h. ” B oynt on v. TR W , I nc. , 858 F. 2d 1178, 1185 ( 6th C ir
. 1988) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m ar ks and ci t at i on om i t t ed)
. T he
m agi s t r at e j udge deci ded t hat , i n t he i nt er es tof j us t i ce, t he mot i on s houl d be r es ol ved on the
m er i t s . Pl ai nt i ff r igh tl y ar gues t hatt he Ri v e r v i e w exce pt i on has been gi ven l i m i t ed
a p p lica tio n to c a se s w h e re th e ju d g e in d ica ted a t trial th a t th e re n e w a l o f th e m o tio n w o u ld notbe neces s ar y , orw her e the evi dence offe r ed fol l ow i ng t he unr enew ed mot i on w as br i ef
a n d in c o n s e q u e n tia l. R i ver vi ew , 8 9 9 F .2 d a t 4 7 7 ; s ee al s o B ach v. F i rs tU

ni on N at ’ lB ank , 1 4 9 F ed
. A p p ’x 3 5 4 , 3 5 9 -60 (6th C ir
. 2 0 0 5 ). N o w ai ver w as found i n B oynt on beca us e the tr i al cour tt ook t he def endant ’ s m ot i onNo. 07-3825 9

Al tho ug h the p art i e s m ak e no m e nt i o n o f i t , R ul e 50 ( b ) w a s ame nde d e f fective Decembe r

1, 1 20 06

— after trial b ut before the OC RC ’s motion was decid ed— to delete the requiremen t th at a Ru le 50 (a) m o t i o nmu s tb e m a d e atth e c l o s e o f a l l o f th e e v i d e n c e . S p e c i f

i c a l l y, Ru l e 5 0 ( b ) w a s am e n d e dt o r e a d : “ If the co urt doe s not gr ant a mo ti on fo r jud gm ent as a matte r of law ma de under

s ubdiv is io n (a), the c ourt i s c o ns i de r e d t o hav e s ub mi tt e d the a c t i o n t o the jur y s ub je c t t o the c o urt ’ s l at e r de c i di ng the l e g a l q ue s t i o ns raised by the motion.” Because sucha motion w ou l d still be a renew ed motion , however, it wouldbe underadvi s ement and t he defenda nt pr es ent ed onl y one w i t nes s w hos e t es t i m onyw as “br i ef and l ar gel ycumul at i ve. ” 858 F. 2d at1186. I n contr as t , t hi s cour tfound w ai veri n A+ H om ecare , w her e ( 1) t he di s t r i ct cour tdi d nott ake the R ul e 50( a) m ot i on underadvi s ement
orot herw i s e s i gnal t hat the d ef en d an tneed notr enew t he mot i on att he cl os e of a l l t he evi dence , and ( 2) t he t es t i m ony fr om t he def endant ’ s t w o addi t i onal w i t nes s es w as i m por t ant to th e d e f

e n s e a n d c o u ld n o t b e c h a ra c te ri z e d a s c u m u la tiv e o r i n c o n s e q u e n tia l. A+ H om ecar e, I

nc. v. Meds har es M

gm t . G r oup, I

nc. , 4 0 0 F .3 d 4 2 8 , 4 4 9 (6 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ); see al so Jacs ks on v. H

ur on D ev. Lt d. , N o. 98- 2356, 2000 W L 282482, at* 3 ( 6t h C i r . M ar . 9, 2000) (un p u b li sh ed ). H er e, t he mag ist r at e j udge deni ed the O C R C ’ s m ot i on att he conc l us i on of t he pl ai nt i ff’ s cas e w i t houtt aki ng i t underadvi s ement ori ndi cat i ng t hati tneed notbe r enew ed att he cl os e of a l l of t he pr oofs
. T he O C R C t hen pr es ent ed i t s cas e thr ough t he t es t i m onyof t hr ee O C R C w i t nes s es overt w o day s of t r i al
. T hatevi dence w as notbr i ef, cumul at i ve, or i ncons equent i al t o t he defe ns e. A s a r es ul t , w e mustconcl ude thatt he O C R C w ai ved i t s r i ght t o br i ng a r enew ed m ot i on for j udgm ent as a m at t er of l aw under R ul e 50( b)
. T her efor e, t he
m a g istra te ju d g e d id n o t er r in d e n y in g th e O C R C ’s m o tio n . H o w e v e r, sin c e th e m a g istra te ju d g e e lec ted to re so lv e th e m o tio n o n th e m e rits, w e a lso a d d re ss th e O C R C ’s a rg u m e n ts in t hatr egar d. 1No. 07-3825 10

l i mi t e d t o the gr o unds a dv anc e d i n the pr e - v e r di c tR ul e 50 ( a ) m o t i o n. T he O CR C ha s no tar gue d thatthe amend ed ru le app lies. B . Judgm ent as a M at t er of L aw E ven as s um i ng no w ai ver , w e agr ee w i t h t he magi s t r at e j udge t hat t he O C R C di d not estab li sh that itw as e n ti tl ed to jud g m en t a s a m a tte r o f law
. W e re v iew a d istri ct co u rt ’s d e c i s i o n d e n y i n g a Ru l e 5 0 ( b ) mo t i o n f o rj u d g me n ta s a ma t t e ro f l a w de novo , appl y i ng t he
sam e test as the d istri ct co u rt . B a rn e s v . C ity o f C in c in n a ti , 4 0 1 F
. 3 d 7 2 9 , 7 3 6 (6th C ir
. 2 0 0 5 ); G r ay v. Toshi ba A m . C ons um erP r ods

. , I nc. , 2 6 3 F
. 3 d 5 9 5 , 5 9 8 (6th C ir
. 2 0 0 1 ). In a feder al ques t i on cas e, t he m ot i on m ay be gra nt ed onl y i f, vi ew i ng t he evi dence i n t he l i ght
m os tfavor ab le to the nonm ovi ng par t y , t her e i s no genui ne i s s ue of f actfort he j ur y , and
re a s o n a b le m in d s c o u ld n o t c o m e to a c o n c lu s io n o th e r t h a n o n e f a v o ri n g th e m o v a n t. G r ay , 263 F. 3d at598. I n r evi ew i ng t he dec i s i on nott o gr ant j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw , w e may
n o twe i g h t h e e v i d e n c e , q u e s t i o n t h e c r e d i b i l i t yo f t h e wi t n e s s e s , o rs u b s t i tu t e o u ro wn ju d g m e n t f

o r t h a t o f

th e ju ry. Id
. ( ci t i ng R eeves v. Sanders on P l um bi ng P r ods

. , I nc. , 530 U
. S
. 1 3 3 , 1 5 0 -51 (20 0 0 )). U n d e r th e R e h a b ili tatio n A c t, w h ich in c o rp o ra tes th e sta n d a rd s o f th e A m e ric a n s w ith D i s abi l i t i es A ct , di s abi l i t ydi s cr i m i nat i on i ncl udes notm aki ng r eas onabl e ac comm odat i ons t o t he know n phy s i cal orm ent al l i m i t at i o n s o f

a n o t h e r wi s e q u a l i f

i e d i n d i v i d u a l wi t h a d i s a b i l i t ywho i s an appl i cantorempl oy ee, unl es s s uch cove r ed ent i tyca n d em ons t r at e thatt he acc om m odat i on w oul d i m p o s e an undue har ds hi p on t he oper at i on of t he b u s i n e s s o f

s u c h c o v e r e d e n t i t y. 42 U
. S. C
. § 12112( b) ( 5) ( A )
. A pl ai nt i ff can es t abl i s h a pr i m a f aci e cas e of di s cr i m i nat i on f o r fa ilu re to m a k e re a so n a b le a c c o m m o d a tio n b y sh o w in g th a t: (1 ) sh e is d isa b led w ith inNo. 07-3825 11

Th e j ury was instru cted that the plaintiff bore th e bu rden of establishin g that: “T he accommodation 2 was need ed, presen t l y

or in th e near futu re, in ord er for the d isabled employ ee to perform the essential fun ctions of the pos ition, i.e. , that a causal relationsh ip existed betweenthe disability a n dt h e r equest for ac co mmo dati on. ” De fe ndant do es no t c hall eng e the juryc har ge o n this e le ment . th e m e a n in g o f th e A c t; (2 ) sh e is a “ q u a lifie d in d iv id u a l w ith a d isa b ili ty ,” m e a n in g sh e is capa bl e of per for m i ng al l es s ent i al funct i ons of herpos i t i on w ith o r w ith o u t acc om m odat i on; (3 ) h e r e m p lo y e r w a s a w a re o f h e r d is a b ility; (4 ) a n a c c o m m o d a tio n w a s n e e d e d , i
. e. , a ca us al
r el at i ons hi p exi s t ed betw een the di s abi l i t yand the r eques t foracc om m odat i on; and ( 5) t he
e m p lo y e r d e n ie d h e r re a s o n a b le a c c o m m o d a tio n . D i C ar l o v. P ot t er , 3 5 8 F .3 d 4 0 8 , 4 1 9 (6 th C i r . 2004)
. O nce t hi s s how i ng i s m ade, t he bur den s hi ft s t o t he empl oy ert o demonst r at e that
a n a c c o m m o d a tio n w o u ld im p o s e a n u n d u e h a rd s h ip
. Id .; Monet t e v. E l ec. D at a Sys
. C or p. , 9 0 F
. 3 d 1 1 7 3 , 1 1 8 3 -84 (6th C ir
. 1 9 9 6 ). T he O C R C ar gues on appea l t hatt her e w as no l egal l ys uffi ci entevi dent i arybas i s for the ju ryto f

ind that p lai n ti ff

h ad p rov ed the f

o u rt h o r fifth elem en ts o f he r claim
. F u rt h er, at t acki ng t he damage aw ar d, t he O C R C ar gues t hat pl ai nt i ff’ s deci s i on t o s t op w or ki ng and t a k e d i s a b i l i t yr e t i r e me n tc o u l d n o tc o n s t i tu t e c o n s tru c t i v e d i s c h a r g e a s a ma t t e ro f l a w. 1. A ccom m odat i on needed 2 D ef en d an t con tend s tha t plainti ff fa il ed to p rese n t any o b jecti v e ev iden ce that there
w as a ca us al r el at i ons hi p bet w een her di s abi l i t y and t he r eques t ed acc om m odat i on. I ti s not t he obj ect i venes s of t he evi dence t hatw e ar e conc erned w i t h, b u tt he obj ect i ve
r eas onabl enes s of t he re ques t ed accomm odat i on. I n expl ai ni ng t he burde ns of pr oof under t he A D A i n Mo n e tte , w e h eld that “the di s abl ed i ndi vi dual bear s t he i ni t i al bur den of p ro p o sin g a n a c c o m m o d a tio n a n d sh o w in g th a t that a c c o m m o d a tio n is o b jec tiv e lyNo. 07-3825 12

De f e ndant ’ s r e l i anc e o n U. S. Airways, Inc
. v. Barne tt , 53 5 U
. S. 39 1, 40 0 ( 2002 ) , i s a l s o m i s p l a c e d. 3 Althoug h the Co urt not ed that an ine ff ec ti ve mo difi cati on wil l no t a cc ommo date adis ab le d indiv idual ’s limitation s, the Cou rt was explainin g why effectiveness was not the sole measure o f the reasonableness of a pro posed acco mmod ation. Ind eed, th e C ourt h eld th at an employ er’s showin g that a re quested accommodationconflicts withsen iority ru les w ouldordin arily

be sufficien t to show , a s a matter of law, that the accommodation was not a reasonable o ne. r eas onabl e. ” 90 F. 3d at 1 1 8 3. U l t i m at el y , t he courtconcl uded thatt he pl ai nt i ff ha d not
es t abl i s hed t hatt he r eques t ed ac comm odat i on— t hathe s t ayon unpai d m edi cal l eave i ndefi ni t el yunt i l a pos i t i on he coul d per for m opened up— w as a “r eas onabl e” one
. 3 T her e i s no s ugges t i on bydefe ndantt hatpl ai nt i ff’ s r eques t ed ac comm odat i on w as not obj ect i vel yr eas onabl e becaus e i tw as t oo vague, orw as notot herw i s e ava i l abl e t o pl ai nt i ff. F o r this re a s o n , C as s i dy v. D etr oi tE dis on C o. , 1 3 8 F .3 d 6 2 9 , 6 3 4 -3 5 (6 th C ir. 1 9 9 8 ), is di s t i ngui s habl e. T he pl ai nt i ff i n C as s i dy h a d re sp ira to ryp ro b lem s a n d w a s tra n sf e rre d f ro m a jo b in the p lant to the co m p u te r c e n te r i n co rpo rate h ea d q u arters, w h ich h ad fil tered an d aircondi t i oned ai r . W hi l e w or ki ng t her e, fum es fr om a room pai nt ed t he ni ght befor e ca us ed pl ai nt i ff pr obl ems t hatr equi r ed an e m er gencyr oom vi s i t . Pl ai nt i ff di d notr etur n t o w or k, butpr ovi ded herempl oy erw i t h a doct or ’ s not e s t at i ng t hat s he needed a “w or ks t at i on fr ee
o f e x p o su re to a n y a g e n t th a t m a y trig g e r as th m a o r c a u se a d ro p in p e a k f lo w a n d th a t is w e ll vent i l at ed. ” I

d. at 632. T hi s cour t concl uded t hat s um m aryj udgm entw as pr oper l yent er ed f o r th e d e f

e n d a n t b e c a u se p lain tiff f a iled to m e e t h e r b u rd e n o f p ro p o sin g a n o b

jec tiv e ly
r eas onabl e ac comm odat ion
. Speci fi cal l y , t he pr opos ed ac comm odat i on of es s ent i al l yan al l er gen- fr ee w or kpl ace w as t oo vague t o i nform t he def endantof w hatw as neede d, orhad been a t t empt ed and w as ot h erw i s e unava i l abl e. H er e, pl ai nt i ff r eques t ed an of fi ce w i t h aNo. 07-3825 13

cl i m at e contr ol uni t , al bei t one t hat had bee n cl eane d, beca us e extr emes of t emper atur e made hers y m pt om s w or s e and tr i gger ed as t hm a att acks
. T hi s w as nott oo vague t o be under s t ood,
a n d w a s n o t u n a v a ilab le in th e O C R C o f f ice s sin c e o n e o r m o re e x ter io r of f ice s w e re v a c a n t. R a th e r, th e O C R C a rg u e s, se e m in g lyin th e a ltern a ti v e , th a t th e re w a s n o leg a lly suffici ent evidence t o s up po rt a fi nd i ng t hat t he acc om m od at i on w as “need ed” (1) becau se pl ai nt i ff ha d m anage d t o per for m t he ess ent i al funct i ons of her j ob form ont hs w i t houti t ; and (2) b ec au se th e re q u ested ac co m m o d ati o n w o u ld n o t hav e b ee n ef fe cti v e a n yw ay . W e a re nott r oubl ed b y the fi r s tar gum entbeca us e ther e w as evi dence t hatal t hough pl ai nt i ff
ma n a g e d t o p e r f

o r m, d e s p i t e h e rd o c t or ’ s op i ni o n t h a ts h e wa s t o t a l l yd i s a b l e d , i tb e c a me
m or e and mor e di ffi cul t unt i l pl ai nt i ff coul d not cont i nue t o w or k w i t houtacc om m odat i on any l onger . T he i r onyi s t hatt he def endantdoes notar gue thatpl ai nt i ff c oul d have c ont i nued
w or ki ng w ith o u t acc om m odat i on, butm ai nt ai ns t hatpl ai nt i ff c oul d n o thave c ont i nued
w or ki ng anyl ongereven w i th acc om m odat i on. N ori s t hi s cas e l i ke G ai nes v. R unyon , 107 F. 3d 1171, 1178 ( 6t h C i r . 1997) , i n w hi ch t hi s cour texpl ai ned t hat t he pl ai nt i ff m us t demonst r at e t hat he ca nnotper for m t he es s ent i al funct i ons of t he j o b w it houtt he r eques t ed ac comm odat i on. T he empl oy ee i n G ai nes
r eques t ed a da y - s hi ftas s i gnm entas an ac comm o dat i on forhi s epi l eps y , and r el i ed on a doct or ’ s r ecomm endat i on t hat i t “w oul d be bes t ” i f t he pl ai nt i ff s t ay ed on a da ys hi fts o he coul d cont i nue hi s r egul ars l ee p h abi t s . T hi s evi dence di d nots at i s fypl ai nt i ff’ s bur den of pr oof bec aus e the o p ini on w as bas ed on the mi s t aken unde r s t andi ng t hatpl ai nt i ff w as
w or ki ng t he days hi ftatt he t i m e. I n fac t , he w as w or ki ng a s pl i ts chedul e of t hr ee day s andNo. 07-3825 14

t w o ni ght s and had e xper i ence d no pr obl ems doi ng s o. A s econd doc t oral s o r ecomm ended
acc om m odat i on bas ed on i nacc ur at e fa ct s , i ncl udi ng t hatpl ai nt i ff’ s “ca paci t y ” atw or k had change d q u it e fr equent l yeven though he had w or ked the s ame sc hedul e fort he pr evi ous
se v e n m o n th s. T h e re q u e ste d a ss ig n m e n t w a s a lso n o t n e e d e d to a c c o m m o d a te a n in a b ili ty t o dr i ve, s i nce the neur ol ogi st had conc l uded thathe w as l egal l yabl e t o dr i ve. I ti s not di ffi cul tt o s ee thatt he pl ai nt i ff i n G ai nes di d not demonst r at e t hat t he ac comm odat i on w as
n e e d e d , “ i
. e. , t hata ca us al r el at i ons hi p exi s t ed betw een the di s abi l i t yand the r eques tfor
a c c o m m o d a tio n .” D efe ndantr el i es on D r . B aughman’ s t es t i m onyt o cal l i nt o ques t i on w hetherpl ai nt i ff
n e e d e d th e re q u e ste d a c c o m m o d a tio n . M o st p o in ted ly , D r. B a u g h m a n tes tifie d th a t h e d id
n o th a v e a n y d irect

evi dence t hatw or ki ng i n a col d ordr yenvi r onm entcontr i but ed t o her havi ng m or e i nfec t i ons or exac erbat ed her condi t i on. B ut , he expl ai ned thathe r el i ed on the in f o rm a tio n th a t p lain tiff

p ro v id e d to h im , a s w e ll a s h isto ric a l in f o rm a tio n th a t o th e r p e o p le
w ith asth m a f

ind co ld, d ry , o r m o ldy en v ir o n m en ts w il l o ften ex ac erb ate th eir co n d it ion
. D r. B a u g h m a n in d ica ted th a t p lain tiff ’s o v e rw h e lm in g h e a lth p ro b lem s w e re re late d to ste ro id
u se a n d u n d e rly in g d a m a g e to h e r l u n g s ra th e r th a n to a c o ld o r dr y o f f ice e n v ir o n m e n t. P lai n ti ff , o f c o u rse, did n o t cl aim that h er lu n g c o n d itio n w as c au sed b ythe w o rk envi r onm ent , onl yt hatt he col d t emper atur es m ad e hers y m pt om s w or s e. I ti s t rue that pl ai nt i ff’ s m edi cal condi t i on ul t i m at el ypr ogr es s ed t o t he poi ntt hat even s he conce ded s he coul d nothave w or ked eve n w i t h acc om m odat i on. I n t h at re g ard , the O C R C ar gues t hatt her e w as no evi dence t hata di ffe r entoffi ceNo. 07-3825 15

w o u ld h a v e su c c e ss f

u llyd e layed th e in e v itab le— th a t b e in g , tha t p lain tiff n e e d e d to compl et el ys t op w or ki ng. I n s uppor tof i t s pos i t i on, defe ndantr el i es on Sm i th v. H onda of A m . M f g. , I nc. , 101 Fed. A pp’ x 20, 26 ( 6t h C i r . 2004)

— a cas e br ought bya pr oduct i on l i ne empl oy ee w i t h br eathi ng pr obl ems w ho s oughtt r ansfert o an off i ce pos i t i on as an
acc om m odat i on. T he pl ai nt i ff i n Sm i t h w as t r ans ferr ed t o an as s embl ydepart m entpos i t i on bas ed on data s ho w i ng t he area had t he low est con centr at i on s o f t he spec i fi ed airbo rne con t am i nan t s. S h e w a s n o t tra n sf

e rre d to a n o f

f ice jo b b o th b e c a u se sh e w o u ld still b e re q u ire d to g o in to pr oduct i on ar eas w i t h cont ami nant s , and bec aus e pl ai nt i ff w as notot herw i s e qual i fi ed t o do th e o f f ice jo b s th a t ca m e o p e n . T h is c o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t H o n d a h a d d isc h a rg e d its obl i gat i on t o Sm i t h, and adde d t hatt he ac comm odat i on w as i neff ect i ve s i nce s he cont i nued t o have br eathi ng pr obl ems. D efe ndantr el i es o n the cour t ’ s fur t herobs er vat i on t hat“t he A D A does not demand the i m pos s i bl e or t he poi nt l es s , and t her e i s s i m p lyn o ev idence sh o w in g e ith e r th a t h e r co n tin u in g p ro b lem s w e re c a u se d b yc o n tin u e d e x p o su re to irritan ts athernew j ob pos t i ng, ort hatt r ans fert o a des k j ob w i t h in H o nda’ s fac i l i t yw oul d have hel ped her
. T he undi s put ed evi dence i ndi cat es pr eci s el yt he oppos i t e. ” Id
. at26. I n m aki ng t hi s obs er vat i on, t he courtw as notr equi r i ng t hat a pl ai nt i ff pr ove a pr opos ed ac comm odat i on
w oul d have w or ked i n or derfori tt o be obj ect i vel yrea so n ab le, buts i m pl yfound t hatt he pl a i n t i f f ’ s p r o o f s f a i l e d i n t h a t c a s e b e c a u s e r e a s o n a b l e a c c o mmod a t i o n was p r o v i ded and had nothel ped. In t his case, D r. B aug hm an t est i fi ed that , given t he seve ri t yof p l ai nti ff’s s y m ptom s,No. 07-3825 16

i t s eemed unl i kel y t hat pl ai nt i ff coul d have “ t oughed i tout ” foranothery eareven i f s he had been i n a m or e comfor t abl e envi r onm ent . Y et , pl ai nt i ff ha d cont i nued t o w or k w i t hout
a c c o m m o d a tio n f

o r n in e m o n th s b e y o n d D r. B a u g h m a n ’s d e ter m in a tio n th a t s h e w a s to tally d isa b led . D r. B a u g h m a n e x p lain e d th a t h e h a d o th e r p a tien ts w h o c o n tin u e d to w o rk w ith
acc om m odat i ons , and s ai d t hati tw as up t o p lai n ti ff t o deci de how l ong s he coul d w or k. Pl ai nt i ff t es t i fi ed t hat s he l oved her j ob and w ant ed t o keep w or ki ng, and thats he coul d and
w o u ld h a v e w o rk e d a t lea st a n o th e r y e a r lo n g e r if sh e h a d b e e n a b le to w o rk in a c lim a te contr ol l ed off

i ce. T her e w as al s o evi dence fr om w hi ch the j ur ycoul d i nfert hat the col d offi ce envi r onm entexac erbat ed pl ai nt i ff’ s s y m pt om s . Speci fi cal l y , pl ai nt i ff m ade ni ne t r i ps t o t he
emer gencyr oom ( E R ) for b rea thi ng pr obl ems dur i ng 2003. T w o of t hos e t i m es s he w as t aken t o t he ER fr om w or k: once be caus e of a n as t hm a att ack i n M ay2003, and once aft er a fi r e dr i l l i n J ul y2003. In all , p lai nt i ff w entt o t he ER once i n A pr i l , t w i ce i n M ay , once
e a c h in Ju ly a n d A u g u st, a n d th re e tim e s in S e p tem b e r 20 0 3
. T h e n in th v isit o f 2 0 0 3 w a s in N ovem b er, a fter pl ai nt i ff w enton di s abi l i t y . B ycompar i s on, pl ai nt i ff w entt o t he ER for br eathi ng pr obl ems fourt i m es i n 2002, and onl yt w i ce i n 2004. A l t hough pl ai nt i ff c oncede d t hatby2005 s he coul d nothave r etur ned t o w or k even w i t h acc om m o d ati o n , ther e w as evi dence fr om w hi ch a j ur ycoul d concl ude thatpl ai nt i ff c o u ld h ave and w oul d have
c o n tin u e d to w o rk th ro u g h O c to b e r 2 0 0 4 if s h e h a d b e e n p ro v id e d re a so n a b le
acc om m odat i on. T aki ng t he evi dence i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o pl ai nt i ff, and kee pi ng i n m i nd t hatNo. 07-3825 17

we ma y n o t we i g h t h e e v i d e n c e , q u e s t i o n t h e c r e d i b i l i t yo f wi t n e s s e s , o rs u b s t i tu t e o u ro wn j udgm ent f

o rt hatof t he j ur y , t her e w as s uffi ci entevi dence fr om w hi ch a r eas onabl e j ur or
c o u ld c o n c lu d e th a t p lain tiff d e m o n stra ted th a t sh e “ n e e d e d ” th e a c c o m m o d a tio n ; i
. e. , t hat t her e w as a ca us al r el at i ons hi p betw een he rdi s abi l i t yand the r eques t ed ac comm odat i on. 2 . D u ty to a cc o m m o d a te N ext, t he O C R C con t end s that i tw as ent i t l ed t o judgm ent as a m at t er of l aw becau se i t fulfi l l ed i t s ob l i gati on t o offer plai nti ff a reas on able accom m od at i on , bu t she r ej ecte d it
w i t hout “gi vi ng i t a chance
. ” I t i s t rue t hat , i n M ay 2003, M cEnt i r e propos ed thatpl ai nt i ff
m o v e into the e x teri o r o f f ic e then o cc u p ied b yR o b erso n . T h ere w as a d ispu te, h o w ev er,
w hetherpl ai nt i ff r efus ed thatoffe ratt he t i m e, i n t he em ai l s t hat fol l ow ed, or ats om e l at er t i m e. Pl ai nt i ff t es t i fi ed t hats he di d notr efus e t o m ove, butonl y w ant ed t he cl i m at e contr ol uni tcl eane d beca us e s he had s een i tw i t h t he cove r off befor e. E ven M cEnt i r e, w ho r epor t ed t hatpl ai nt i ff ha d r ej ect ed the off er , s ubs equent l y as ked for cl ar i fi cat i on on t he “s t atus of her
acc e p t a n c e . ” Pl a i n t i f

f ’ s r e s p o n s e , i n s i s t i n g t h a t t h e u n i t b e c l e a n e d , s u g g e s t i n g t hat
m ai nt enanc e per s onnel m i ght not be compet ent t o cl ean i t pr oper l y , and i ndi cat i ng t hats he
w oul d have t o cons ul tw i t h couns el befor e fi nal i zi ng a dec i s i on, w as not an unequi vocal
r e j e c t i o n t h a two u l d r e q u i r e e n t r yo f j u d g me n ta s a ma t t e ro f l a w. Fur t her , t her e w as evi dence t hatM cEnt i r e i nqui r ed abouthavi ng t he uni tcl eane d, but
no evi dence t hat pl ai nt i ff w as advi s ed ei t her t hat i t coul d be cl eane d eff ect i vel y , or t hati thad been c l eane d, atanyt i m e bef or e s he appl i ed for di s abi l i t y . N ordi d pl ai nt i ff he aranyt hi ng fr om M cEnt i r e orany ot her s uper vi s or aft er s he l earned fr om R ober s on t hatt he uni thad bee nNo. 07-3825 18

r epl ace d i n Sept ember 2003. G ai t her
- T hom ps on t es t i fi ed thats he and M cEnt i r e had d iscu ss e d e ith er c lean ing the u n ito r m o v ing p lai n ti ff to the “p lant” o ff

ice, bu t M cE n ti re cho se t o d o nei t her. G ai t her- T ho m pson exp l ai ned t hat M cE nti re w as exasperat ed an d just
w ant ed pl ai nt i ff t o getfrus t r at ed and l eave l i ke anotherempl oy ee na m ed C or nel i us had p re v io u sly . A lth o u g h M c E n tire d e n ied it, G a ith e r-T h o m p so n a lso tes tifie d th a t M c E n tire d id
n o t w a n t p lain tiff ’s o f

f ice lo c a ted n e a r he rs b e c a u se sh e b e liev e d p lain tiff to b e a d e m o n ic sp irit w ith a n e v il h e a rt. F in a lly , the ju rya lso c o u ld c o n s id e r w h e th e r th e O C R C f a iled to p a rticip a te, in g o o d f

a ith , in a n “ in ter a c tiv e p ro c e ss ” f o r d e te r m in in g a n a p p ro p ria te
re a so n a b le a c c o m m o d a tio n . 2 9 C .F .R . § 1 6 3 0 .2 (o )(3 ); s e e a l s o Kl e i b e rv . Ho n da o

f A m. M f g. , I nc. , 4 8 5 F .3 d 8 6 2 , 8 7 1 -7 2 (6 th C ir. 2 0 0 7 ); Sm i th v. Hender s on , 3 7 6 F .3 d 5 2 9 , 5 3 6 (6 th C i r . 2004)
. I n al l , t her e w as s uffi ci entevi dence fr om w hi ch the j ur ycoul d concl ude thatt he O C R C fai l ed t o offe ra r eas onab le a ccomm odat i on orpar t i ci pat e i n good fai t h i n t he i nter act i ve p rocess . 3. C onst ruct i ve di s charge T he exi s t ence of cons t ruct i ve di s char ge “de pends upon t he fa ct s o f ea ch ca s e and
r equi r es an i nqui r yi nt o t he i nt entof t he em pl oy erand the r eas onabl yfor es eea bl e i m pactof t he empl oy er ’ s conductupon t he empl oy ee. ” Held v. G ul f O i lC o. , 6 8 4 F .2 d 4 2 7 , 4 3 2 (6 th C i r . 1982)
. A fi ndi ng of cons t ruct i ve di s char ge r eq u ir es the det er m i nat i on t hat“‘ w or ki ng condi t i ons w oul d have be en s o di ffi cul torunpl eas antt hata r eas onabl e per s on i n t he empl oy ee’ s s hoes w oul d have fel t compel l ed t o r es i gn. ’ ” I d. ( ci t at i on om i t t ed)
. D efe ndant
a rg u e s th a t th e re w a s ins u f f icie n t e v id e n c e to su p p o rt a f in d in g o f c o n stru c tiv e d isc h a rg e inNo. 07-3825 19

t h i s c a s e a s a ma t t e ro f

l a w. D efendantdeni es t hati tdel i ber at el ym ade pl ai nt i ff’ s w or ki ng condi t i ons i nt ol er abl e— not i ng t hatpl ai nt i ff also compl ai ned thatt he ent i r e bui l di ng w as t oo col d. D efe ndantemphasi zes t hatpl ai nt i ff w as al l ow ed to do br eathi ng t r eatm ent s atw or k, w as per m i t t ed t o us e per s onal l eave and vac at i on t i m e w hen s he w as s i ck, and w as offe r ed an oppor tuni t y to m o v e int o t he ext er i oroffi ce s he had pr evi ous l yoccupi ed. I n t er m s of del i ber at enes s , how ever , t her e w as ev iden ce t hatone orm or e ext er i oroffi ces w er e l eft
vaca nt , t hatt he cl i m at e cont r ol uni t w as never cl eane d s o pl ai nt i ff coul d m ake the move, and t hatM cE n ti re w an t ed pl ai nt i ff t o become frus t r at ed and l eave t he O C R C as another empl oy ee ha d. N or ca n defe ndantcl ai m t o have be en unaw ar e of pl ai nt i ff’ s des i r e t o be
m o v e d t o a n e x t e r i o ro f f i c e a s a n a c c o m m o d a t i o n f o rh e rd i s a b i l i t y. W hi l e fa i l ur e t o gi ve an empl oy ee an ext er i oroffi ce w oul d notnor m al l ybe s uffi ci ent
as a mat t erof l aw t o es t abl i s h co ns t ruct i ve di s char ge, t hi s i s nota typi cal cons t ruct i ve di s char ge ca s e bec au se p l ai nt i ff’ s cl ai m w as t hatt he def endant ’ s act i ons deni ed pl ai nt i ff
re a s o n a b le a c c o m m o d a tio n a n d f o rc e d h e r t o ta k e d is a b ility re tir e m e n t e a rl y . S e e Sm ith , 376 F. 3d a t 5 3 4 ( f

i n d i n g q u e s t i o n o f f

a c t o n c o n s t ru c t i v e d i s c h a r g e whe r e p l a i n t i f f w as deni ed
a c c o mmo d a t i o n t h a two u l d a l l o w h e rt o p e r f o r m w i t h i n h e rme d i c a l r e s t r i c t i o n s )
. Th e OCRC
a rg u e s th a t th e re w a s n o e v id e n c e th a t w o u ld su p p o rt a f in d in g th a t p lain tiff

w a s f o rc e d to
r et i r e byt he fa i l ur e t o acc om m odat e r athert han s i m pl yr eal i zi ng t hat her m edi cal condi t i on
m ade i ti m pos s i bl e t o cont i nue w or ki ng. O n t he contr ary , t her e w as confl i ct i ng evi dence on t hi s ques t i on, and w e ca nnots ayNo. 07-3825 20

Th e ju ry was instru cted: “T hat a perso n is un able to work fo r the purposes o f receiv ing Social 4 Secu rity or State of Ohio d isability benefits d oes n ot n ecessarily m ean that she was not a qualified in dividual un der th e RehabilitationAct. Th is is because d isability retirem ent benefits are grant ed even if the employ ee may b e ca pa bl e of p er fo rmi ng h erj ob w it h a n acc ommo dati on. ” The jury wa s instruc te d that i f, des pi te havin g rec eived disability benefits, plaintiff co uld non etheless have performed the essential function s of her job wi th o r without a re as ona bl e ac co mmo dati on, the y mus t f ind that s he wa s a qua li fied i ndivi dual with ad i s abi l i ty. th a t re a so n a b le m in d s c o u ld c o m e to b u t o n e c o n c lu sio n in f a v o r o f th e d e f e n d a n t o n th is i s s ue. T her e w as evi dence t hat pl ai nt i ff coul d have a ppl i ed fordi s abi l i t yr et i r ement m ont hs
ea rl ier, p ersist ed in as k ing fo r ac co m m o d ati o n , an d fin all yd ec ided that sh e co u ld n o t w o rk
a n o th e r w in ter w ith o u t ac c o m m o d a tio n . T h e e v id e n c e , ta k e n in th e lig h t m o st f a v o ra b le to p lai n ti ff , w as su ff

ici en t t o cre ate a q u esti o n o f f ac t w h ethe r de fe n d an t m ad e p la in tif f’s
w o rk in g c o n d iti o n s s o in to ler a b le b yf a il in g to p ro v id e re a so n a b le a c c o m m o d a tio n th a t a
r e a s o n a b l e p e r s o n i n h e rs h o e s w o u l d h a v e f e l tc o m p e l l e d t o g o o n d i s a b i l i t y. 4 . D a m a g es a n d d isab il it y b en efits W i t hout chal l engi ng t he j ur y i ns t ruct i on on t he i s s ue, defe ndantas s er t s t hatpl ai nt i ff fai l ed t o s uffi ci ent l yexpl ai n t he i nher entcontr adi ct i on betw een c l a i mi n g t o b e d i s a b l ed under t he O hi o Publ i c Em pl oy ees R et i r ement Sy s t em (O PE R S) and cl ai m i ng t o b e a qua l i fi ed i ndi vi dual w i t h a di s abi l i t yw i t hi n t he meaning of t he A ct . A s pl ai nt i ff poi nt s out , t he 4 S u p re m e C o u rt h a s h e ld th a t an in d iv id u a l’s c laim f o r dis a b ili ty b e n e f

its d o e s n o t in h e re n tly
c o n f l ic t w ith a c la im f

o r d a m a g e s f

o r f a ilu re to re a s o n a b ly ac c o m m o d a te h e r d is a b il i t y. C l eve l and v. P ol i cy M

gm t . Sys
. , C or

p. , 5 2 6 U
. S
. 7 9 5 , 8 0 6 (19 9 9 ). T h e thru st of d ef en d an t’ s
ar gum ent , w hi l e i nvoki ng C l eve l and , actual l ys eems t o be a chal l enge t o t he s uffi ci encyof t he evi dence t o es t abl i s h t hat pl ai nt i ff w as a qual i fi ed di s abl ed em pl oy ee aft er s he w entonNo. 07-3825 21

Al tho ug h d e f

e ndant do e s no ts p e c i f

i cal l y ar gue thatthe v e r di c ti s a g a i ns tthe w e i g hto f the 5 eviden ce, “ a ju ry ’s verdict shouldnot be overturn ed as bein g ag ainst th e weight of the eviden ce un less that verdict was un reasonable.” Ho lmes , 78 F .3dat 104 7. Th e ve rdi ct here cann ot be said to b e un reasonable. di s abi l i t yr et i r ement . I n ot herw or ds , defe ndant arg u es that t her e w as no evi dence t hat pl ai nt i ff w oul d have be en abl e t o cont i nue w or ki ng even w i t h r eas onabl e ac comm odat i on. Pl ai nt i ff co ncede d t hatt hi s w as t rue by2005, but , as di s cus s ed above , pl ai nt i ff p re se n ted evidence that , w i t h acco m m od at i on , she cou l d an d w ou l d h ave co nti nu ed to per for m t he es s ent i al funct i ons of herj ob foratl eas tanothery ear . I ndeed, t he j ur y ’ s damage
aw ar d s ugges t s t hatt hi s t es t i m onyw as found t o be cr edi bl e. C . N e w Tri al or R e m i t t i t ur A n ew tr i al i s w arr ant ed w hen the j ur yhas r eac hed a s er i ous l yerr oneous r es ul t , as evi dence d byt he ver di ctbei ng agai ns tt he w ei ghto f the ev idence , t he damages bei ng
e x c e s s iv e , o r t h e tr ia l b e in g u n f a irto th e m o v in g p a rt yin s o m e f a s h io n . H

olm es v. C i t

y of Mas s i l l on , 78 F. 3d 1041, 1045- 46 ( 6t h C i r . 1996)
. T he cour t m ay al t ernat i vel ygr ant
r emi t t i turof t he amount of damages aw ar ded, butonl yw hen the aw ar d cl ear l yexce eds t he
m a x im u m a m o u n t th a t a ju ry c o u ld re a s o n a b ly f in d to b e c o m p e n s a to ry f o r t h e lo s s . R ou sh v. K F C N at ’ lM gm t . C o. , 10 F. 3d 392, 397 ( 6t h C i r . 1993)
. W e r evi ew a di s t r i ctcourt’s d e n ia l o f a R u le 5 9 m o tio n f

o r n e w tr ia l o r re m ittit u r o f d a m a g e s f o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . Id
. 5 1. Jury I nst ruct i on Ju ryinstruction s ar e r evi ew ed as a w h o le t o d eterm ine w h ethe r t h eyad eq u atelyinf o rm th e ju ry o f th e re le v a n t co n s id e ra tio n s a n d p ro v id e a b a s is in la w f o r a id in g th e ju ry. His r i ch
v. V ol vo C ars of

N
. A m . , I nc. , 226 F.3d 4 4 5 , 4 4 9 (6th C i r . 2000)
. “‘ A j udgm entm aybeNo. 07-3825 22

r ever s ed onl yi f t he ins tr u ct i ons , vi ew ed as a w hol e, w er e conf us i ng, m i s l eadi ng, or pr ej udi ci al
. ’ ” Id
. ( ci tat ion om i t t ed)
. D efe ndantar gues t hatt he cons t ruct i ve di s char ge i ns t ruct i on w as err oneous and mi s l eadi ng beca us e i tstat ed t hatt he empl oy ee “ m us thave actual l ys t opped w or ki ng, ” i ns t ead of i ns t ruct i n g t he j ur yt hatt he empl oy ee “ m us thave actual l yqui torr es i gned. ” W hi l e i tcoul d be mi s l eadi ng t o i ns tructa j u ry that i tw oul d be
s uffi ci entfora pl ai nt i ff t o have “ s t opped w or ki ng, ” w e fi nd t hati tw as nei the rm i s l eadi ng
norpr ej udi ci al i n t hi s cas e becaus e ther e w as no fac tual di s put e overw hetherpl ai nt i ff ha d lef t h e r jo b . R a th e r, th e d isp u te w a s w h e th e r sh e lef t v o lu n tar ilyo r w a s f

o rc e d to lea v e e a rly bydefe ndant ’ s fai l ur e t o pr ovi de r eas onabl e ac comm odat i on. I n C onr ad v. C haco C r edi tU ni on, I nc. , N o . 9 0 -3 8 8 0 , 1 9 9 1 W L 2 1 6 4 6 3 (6 th C ir. O c t. 24, 1991) ( unpubl i sh ed ), t hi s cour tagr eed w i th t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s det er m i nat i on t hatt he pl ai nt i ff w as notent i t l ed t o a j ur yi ns t ruct i on on cons t ruct i ve di s char ge. T her e, t he pl ai nt i ff h ad a b rea k d o w n w h en told sh e w as b eing d em o ted w ith o u t a loss o f p ay , an d w as o ff w o rk
r ece i vi ng di s abi l i t yi ns ur ance benef i t s . She w as fr ee t o r etur n t o w or k w hen r el eas ed byher doct or s ; herempl oy ercont i nued t o chec k w hen s he mi ghtr etur n; and s he nei t herr es i gned
norw as di s char ged. T he pl ai nt i ff br ought a cl ai m of age di s cr i m i nat i on, butw as pr ecl uded f ro m c laim in g c o n stru c tiv e d isc h a rg e b e c a u se sh e h a d n o t re sig n e d o r be e n d isc h a rg e d . T h is
c o u rt e x p lain e d : “I t is im p licit in th e d e c isio n s d e a li n g w ith c o n stru c tiv e d isc h a rg e th a t a pl ai nt i ff mustbe s epar at ed fr om empl oy m entbys om e mechan ism l i ke r es i gnat i on or
r et ir ement . ” Id . at * 9 (c iti n g c a se s o f in v o lu n tar yre tirem e n t, fo rc e d e a rlyre tirem e n t, resign ati o n , an d d isab il ityreti rem en t)
.No. 07-3825 23

D efe ndant ’ s ar gum ent , w hi ch actual l y appea r s t o be a chal l enge t o t he s uffi ci encyof t he evi dence , i s t hat pl ai nt i ff cannot m ai nt ai n a cl ai m forcons t ruct i ve di s char ge bec aus e s he di d notl egal l ys everherempl oy m entr el at i ons hi p. I n t he mot i on forj udgm entas a m at t er of l aw , defe ndantchar act e r i zed pl ai nt i ff a s s om eone “ on i nj ur ed r es er ve” w ho i s s i m pl yaw ay fr om w or k t aki ng advant age of t he st at e’ s di s abi l i t y pr ogr am. T he O C R C r el i es on t es t i m ony t hatO PE R S pr ovi des a s t atut or y r i ght t o r ei ns t at ement fr om di s abi l i t yr et i r ement dur i ng t he f ir s t f iv e y e a rs if

a n a n n u a l r e v ie w re v e a ls th a t th e re tir e e is n o lo n g e r d is a b le d . O HI O R EV . C OD E § 145. 362. B e thatas i tm ay , defe ndantoffe r s no author i t yt o s uppor ti t s cont ent i on t hat t hi s r i ght of r ei ns t at ement pr ecl udes , as a m at t er of l aw , t he pl ai nt i ff’ s cl ai m t hat s he w as
cons t ruct i vel ydi s char ged bybei ng for ced t o t ake di s abi l i t y r et i r ement ear l y . T he i s s ue for t he j ur yw as w hetherpl ai nt i ff w enton di s abi l i t yvol unt aril y , o r w as for ced i nt o t aki ng d isa b ili tyre tirem e n t ea rlier th a n sh e w o u ld h a v e b yth e f a ilu re to re a so n a b lya c c o m m o d a te h e rd i s a b i l i t y. 2. D am ages B yw ayof r emi t t i tur , defe n d ants eeks t o r educe t he j ur y ’ s aw ar d of l os tw ages and benef i t s on t he gr ounds t hati tw as pur el ys pecul at i ve w hether pl ai nt i ff coul d have w or ked fo r a y ea r lo n g er than sh e d id. D esp it e c o n fli cti n g ev iden ce o n the issu e, i t did n o t r eq u ir e
s pecul at i on fort he j ur y t o fi nd t hatpl ai nt i ff c oul d have a nd w oul d have w or ked anothery ear if sh e h a d n o t b e e n d e n ied re a so n a b le a c c o m m o d a tio n . It w a s w ith in th e ju ry ’s p u rv iew to deci de w hether and how m uch l onger pl ai nt i ff w oul d have w or ked i n cal cul at i ng t he amount of damages r eas onabl y nece s s ar y t o compensa t e her for l os t w ages and bene fi t s . A damageNo. 07-3825 24

aw ar d m us t s t and unl es s i ti s bey ond t he r ange s uppor t abl e byt he pr oof, i s s o exce s s i ve as to s h o c k t h e c o n s c ie n c e , o r i s th e re s u lt o f m is ta k e . Lei l a H

os p. & H eal th C t r . v. X

oni cs Med. Sys. , 94 8 F
. 2d 27 1, 27 8 (6t h C i r. 19 91 ). T he m agis t rat e j ud ge in t his case di d n ot abuse his dis cret i on i n d eny i ng defe nd ant’ s m oti on for new t ri al or r em i t t i tur of t he d am ages. AF F I RM ED .