Opinion ID: 2833087
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Accident and Disability Leave

Text: The accident occurred on the evening of July 28, 2011. Plaintiff was driving through an intersection when her car was broadsided by a vehicle that had run a red light. She was taken to the hospital and remained there until early in the morning the following day. She suffered pain and swelling in her extremities as a result of the accident, and she became prone to experiencing headaches, blurred vision, and dizziness. Despite these symptoms and her trip to the emergency room, Defendant allegedly demanded that Plaintiff open the store the same morning she was released from the hospital. She complied, but Defendant eventually sent another manager from a different store to relieve Plaintiff from the remainder of her shift. Plaintiff returned to work the next couple of days, until she was able to go on disability leave pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), after she submitted to Defendant a letter from her doctor. Plaintiff remained on FMLA leave through October 2011 while she continued to recover from her injuries and attend physical therapy. In early November 2011, when Plaintiff’s FMLA leave was exhausted, she submitted another note from her doctor that stipulated her readiness for work, contingent on certain restrictions. Plaintiff was not permitted to work for more than four hours a day or to lift more than ten pounds. Defendant outsourced the administration of its leave programs to a third-party provider named Matrix. After receiving Plaintiff’s note, Matrix contacted Defendant’s leave administrator, Rebecca Cherry. Ultimately, Cherry was responsible for determining whether an accommodation could be made for an employee claiming a disability. To make this determination, she would compare the affected individual’s written job description with the limitations the individual was requesting that Defendant accommodate. 4 No. 14-2344 The job description for assistant store manager is broken down into six sections, each of which contains a number of bullet points. The sections are titled as follows: “General Summary,” “Duties and Essential Job Functions,” “Knowledge and Skills,” “Work Experience and/or Education,” “Competencies,” and “Working Conditions and Physical Requirements.” (R. 20-2, Job Description). Key to this dispute is the following bullet point, listed under the heading “Physical Requirements”: “[f]requent and proper lifting of up to 40 pounds; occasional lifting of up to 55 pounds.” (Id.). Based on this requirement, Cherry informed Matrix that “[t]he 10 lb lifting restriction prohibits [Plaintiff] from performing the essential functions of her job.” (R. 28-9, Matrix Log). Matrix in turn informed Plaintiff that Defendant was unable to accommodate her, but that she could take advantage of Defendant’s Medical Leave of Absence program, which would afford her an additional six weeks of leave. She was also informed that if her medical restrictions did not change prior to the exhaustion of this additional leave, she would need to contact Defendant directly to seek further accommodations. Defendant’s Medical Leave program explicitly stated that “[e]mployment may be terminated at the end of leave if the employee does not return to work, unless otherwise required by law.” (R. 27-3, Medical Leave Policy, PageID # 330).