The Honora ble Robert H. Cleland, United States District J udg e for the Easter n District of * Michig an, sitting by

desig nation. Ha ll s ue d b oth

Th e Sc ott s Com

pa ny and its su c c e sso r i n inte re st, Th e Sc ott s Co mpa ny L L C. 1 The de fenda

nts are r efe rre d to here in collectively as “Scotts.” NO T REC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 06a0818n.06 F iled: Novem ber 7, 2006 No. 06-3275 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT H
. RA N D A LL H A LL, Pla int if f- Ap pe lla nt,
v. THE SCOTTS COMP ANY ET A L ., De fe nd ants -A

pp e lle e s. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON A PP E A L FROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT COURT FOR T H E S OUTHERN DI STRI CT OF O H IO O P I N I O N

BEFORE: KEITH and McK EAGU E, Circuit Judges; and CL ELAND, District Judge. * McK EAGU E, Circuit Judge. H. Rand a ll Ha ll wo rk e d fo r Th e Sc ott s Com pa ny , a n O hio
c or po ratio n, fo r a

numbe r o f ye ars . Cl a imi ngthat he is di sab led and that th e c omp any

fa ile d to 1
acc ommodate hi s disability , Hall s ued the company under the Americ ans wit h Disabilities Act, 42 U.S
. C
. § 1 2111 et seq . (the “ ADA” ), and O hio’s handica p discrimination law, Ohio Rev. Code § 4112.01 et seq . T h e d is tr ic t c o urt c o n c lu d e d th a t H a ll ’ s A D A c la im

w a s ti me - b ar

r e d an d g rante d
summa ry jud g me nt t o th e c omp any ; it de c lin e d su pp le me nta l jur isd ic tio n ov e r t he state law c la im. F or the re a so ns se t f

or th b e low , w e a ff

ir m.

I.No. 06-3275

Hall v. The Scotts Co.

In his response to the dispositive motion, Hall requested under Fe d. R. Civ. P . 56(f) that the 2 district court dec line to decide the company ’s motion until dis cover y could be take n. The district court de nied his reque st. Hall does not a rgue on appea l that the district c ourt err ed in this aspe ct of its de cision; acc ording ly , he has w aived a ny argument on the matter. Dillery v. City of Sandusky , 398 F.3d 562, 569 ( 6th Cir. 2005); Di x on v . A sh c ro

ft , 392 F.3d 212, 217 ( 6th Cir. 2004). - 2 - Hall suffe rs from a

breathing c ondition that causes dec rea sed lungcapa city . In Marc h 2003, Hall re quested that S cotts provide him with a re spirator/har dhat unit that would enable him to work
a s a fo rk lif t dr ive r d e sp ite his br e athi ng c on dit ion . In Augus t 20 03 , th e c omp any re fu se d h is r e qu e st,
c iti ngsa fe ty

c on c e rn s o ve r h is o pe ratin g a fo rk lif t w hil e we ari ng th e res pirator . H a ll o ff e re d in November

2003 to purcha se the re spirator himself if he wer e allowed to w ear it while working . The company declined a g ain on Dec ember 20, 2003. Sub se qu e ntl y , H a ll f

ile d a c ha rg e of dis c ri min a tio n with the Eq ua l Empl oy

me nt O pp or

tun ity Commis sio n ( “ EE OC ” ) o n O c tober 13 , 2 00 4. Th e EE OC de c lin e d to take any a c tio n, and

Ha ll initiated the prese nt action. Scotts moved the district court to di smiss t he ADAclaim as time-ba rre d. Although styled as a motion to dismis s, the district court t re at ed Scotts’s moti on as one f or summary

judgme nt beca use both pa

rties submitt ed aff

idavits to support their respe ctive positions. The d i s t ri ct court 2
a g r e e d w i thS c o t t s , an d

g r an t e d s u m m ar y j u d g m e n tt o th e c o mp an y.

II. We review de novo the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s g ra nt of summa

ry jud g me nt ba se d on t ime lin e ss. Johnson v. Karnes , 3 98 F .3 d 8 68 , 8 73 (6 th C ir . 2 00 5) ; Amini v. Oberlin College , 259 F.3d 493, 497-No. 06-3275

Hall v. The Scotts Co.

Ha ll atte mpt s to c re ate an is su e of fa c t he re wh e re no ne e xists . In a n a ff ida vit by its sa fe ty 3 mana g e r, Sc ott s st ate s th at it inf or me d H a ll o f i ts s a fe ty

c on c e rn s in Au g us t 20 03 . H a ll’ s a ff ida vit in response is silent on the re ason g iven t o him by the company

for its ref usal. His silence on the subject does not re fute or othe rwise c all into question the company ’s stated rationale. - 3 - 98 (6th Cir. 2001). In order to rec over f

or illeg al discrimination in employ ment under the ADA, a plaintiff must first timely file a c harg e of discr imination wi t h t h e EEOC. 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a) (i nc or po ratin g the c ha

rg ingre qu ir e me nts of

Ti tle VI I , 4 2 U .S. C. § 20 00 e -5 (e )) ; Amini , 259 F.3d at 498. Hall had 300 da

y s from whe n his claim arose to file his char g e. Amini , 259 F.3d at 498. He filed his char g e on Oc tober 13, 2004; thus, g oing ba ck 300 day s, h i s cl aim must be based on a discriminatory

act oc curr ing a fter D ece mber 17, 2003. I f his c laim a rose be fore Dec ember

18th, he is barre d from pursuingit. Sharpe v. Cureton , 3 1 9 F
. 3 d 2 5 9 , 2 6 8 ( 6 thC i r . 2 0 0 3 ) ( “ [ T ] h e T i t l e V II administrative cha

rg e per iod is functionally equivalent to a statute of limitations.”). We ag ree with the district court that the only potentially

disc r im inatory

act by Scotts occurr ed in Au g us t 2003 , whe n the c omp any de nie d his re qu e st be c a us e of its sa fe ty c on c e rn s. Ha ll a sse rt s

3 that the par

tie s were eng ag ed in an “ interac tive proce ss” to acc ommodate his disability , see29 C.F .R. § 1630.2( o )( 3) , w hic h d id n ot c ulm inate un til De c e mbe r 20, 20 03
. Yet , his o ff e r t o b uy the un it, made in Nov e mb e r , d id

n o t r e s p o n d

in an y w ay to th e c o mp an y ’ s s a f

e ty c o n c e r n s an d w a s , a s the district court put it, simply “an impotent attempt” to r enew his earlier reque st. Scotts’s reiteration of its e arl ie r d e nia l w a s, at mo st, “ me re ly a c on se qu e nc e of

its [ea rl ie r] d isc ri min a tor

y a c t,” and no t, as Ha ll contends, the culmination of an inter active pr ocess to acc ommodate his disability
. Conner
v. Rec kitt &

Colman, Inc. , 84 F.3d 1100, 1102 (8th Cir. 1996) (“[A] llowing [ the pl aintiff] to restart the statute of lim i t at ions by sendinga letter

reque sting re asonable acc ommodations after she hasNo. 06-3275

Hall v. The Scotts Co.

- 4 - be e n une qu ivo c a lly

fi re d w ou ld d e str oy

the statut e of

lim itatio ns .” ); see also Elme nayer v . ABF Fr e igh t Sy

s. , 318 F.3d 130, 135 (2d Cir. 2003) (explaining that “[t] he reje ction o f a p roposed
a c c omm od atio n is a sin g le c omp le te d a c tio n w he n ta ke n” ); Zdziech v. Daimle rChrysler Corp. , 114 F. App’ x 469, 472 (3d Cir. 2004) (un published) ( “ To permit [an employ ee] to rese t the statutory require ments for the timely filing of a co m p l ai n t mere ly by writing a new

letter to his former
e mpl oy e r w ou ld c le arl y

vit iat e th e in tent

be hin d th e 30 0- da

y tim e lim it. ” ). As Ha ll’ s A DAc la im
arose befor e De cembe r 18, 2003, it is barre d.

III . For the foreg oing r easons, we aff irm the district court’s grant of summar y judgme nt in favor of Scotts on Hall’s ADA c laim. W e fu rt h er a ffirm the district c ourt’s dec ision to decline
s u p p l em ental jurisdi ction over H all’s state lawclaim. See 28 U. S.C. § 1 36 7( c )( 3) ; U n ite d Mine W orkers of Am. v . Gibbs , 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966) (“ Certainly , if the fe dera l claims are dismiss ed befor e trial, e ven thoug h not insubstantial i n a j u ri sdictional sense, the state claims should be dismiss ed as w ell.”).