Opinion ID: 757800
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Proving Discriminatory Intent Under the ADA

Text: 22 Under the MHCRA, it is unlawful for an employer to discriminate because of a[n employee's] handicap. MICH. COMP. LAWS ANN. § 37.1102(a) (West 1997). An employer is also required under the statute to accommodate a handicapper for purposes of employment ... unless the [employer] demonstrates that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship. MICH. COMP. LAWS ANN. § 37.1102(b) (West 1997). 23 The language of the MHCRA mirrors that of the ADA. Both acts forbid an employer from discriminating on the basis of an employee's disability. See Monette v. Electronic Data Sys., Corp., 90 F.3d 1173, 1178 n. 3 (6th Cir.1996) (noting that the analysis under the MHCRA parallels that under the ADA). Because resolution of Smith's ADA claim also disposes of his MHCRA claim, we will analyze this case by reference to the ADA claim. 24 The ADA was designed, in part, to combat the stereotypical assumptions underlying society's views of those with disabilities. See 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(7). As noted by Senator Harkin during the passage of the ADA: The thesis of the [ADA] is simply this: That people with disabilities ought to be judged on the basis of their abilities; they should not be judged nor discriminated against based on unfounded fear, prejudice, ignorance, or mythologies; people ought to be judged based upon the relevant medical evidence and the abilities they have. 136 Cong. Rec. S 7422-03, 7437 (daily ed. June 6, 1990) (statement of Sen. Harkin). To that end, the ADA prohibits employers from discriminating against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability of such individual in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). 25 An employee may prove discrimination based on his or her disability in two ways. The first is by putting forward direct evidence that the defendant had a discriminatory motive in carrying out its employment decision. See Robinson v. Runyon, 149 F.3d 507, 512-14 (6th Cir.1998) (discussing the difference between direct versus circumstantial proof in a Title VII case). Such evidence would take the form, for example, of an employer telling an employee, I fired you because you are disabled. Because rarely will there be direct evidence from the lips of the defendant proclaiming his or her ... animus,id., employees have a second method to prove discrimination: the indirect burden-shifting approach first articulated in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-03, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). It is by this latter route that Smith seeks to prove his ADA claim. 26 Under the indirect evidence method, the employee must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination. Monette, 90 F.3d at 1186. Once the employee successfully makes out a prima facie case, a mandatory presumption of discrimination is created and the burden shifts to the employer to proffer a non-discriminatory reason for discharging the employee. Id. at 1178, 1186. If the employer is able to sustain its burden, then the mandatory presumption evaporates into a permissive inference, and the burden shifts back to the employee to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the employer's proffered reason for discharge was actually a pretext intended to hide unlawful discrimination. Id. While the burden of production shifts back and forth between the parties under the McDonnell Douglas framework, the ultimate burden of proving that the employer discriminated against the employee on account of his or her disability remains at all times with the employee. Monette, 90 F.3d at 1186-87. 27 Chrysler does not challenge the district court's holding that Smith had established a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA. Smith similarly concedes that Chrysler proffered a non-discriminatory reason for firing him, i.e., that he lied on various job forms wherein he stated that he was not narcoleptic and had not suffered from unusual fatigue. This appeal therefore focuses on Smith's challenge to the legitimacy of Chrysler's proffered reason for firing him. In Smith's view, the evidence in the record demonstrates that: (1) he did not, from a medical standpoint, actually suffer from narcolepsy, but rather from a sleeping disorder very similar to narcolepsy; (2) his sleeping disorder was neither caused by nor associated with symptoms of unusual fatigue; (3) he disclosed up front to Dr. Rood that he was narcoleptic when he first applied for a job at Chrysler in 1993; (4) the timing of Chrysler's investigation into his employment history was suspiciously close to his request for a change in working hours to accommodate his sleeping disorder; and (5) Chrysler's investigation was ill-informed and shoddy, as Michael failed to make any attempt to personally interview him or his treating physicians, or attempt to educate herself on the subtle nuances surrounding sleeping disorders in general and his condition in particular. In light of this evidence, Smith claims that a jury should determine whether Chrysler's reason for firing him was pretextual.