Opinion ID: 6500747
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: ADA/KCRA retaliation claims

Text: Sublett finally alleges that she suffered retaliation for her accommodation requests in violation of the ADA and the KCRA. To establish this claim, Sublett must demonstrate that: “(1) she engaged in a protected activity; (2) her ‘exercise of such protected activity was known by the defendant; (3) thereafter, the defendant took an action that was “materially adverse” to the plaintiff; and (4) a causal connection existed between the protected activity and the materially adverse action.’” Rogers v. Henry Ford Health Sys., 897 F.3d 763, 775 (6th Cir. 2018) (quoting Laster v. City of Kalamazoo, 746 F.3d 714, 730 (6th Cir. 2014)). Putting aside the first three prongs, Sublett’s claim fails because she cannot establish the fourth prong—a causal connection. As detailed in the disability discrimination section, MHK has provided a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for terminating Sublett—her insubordination in refusing to sign a PIP based on behavioral incidents reasonably investigated by MHK. Sublett has failed to sufficiently demonstrate that this reason was pretextual, and that either her disability or her accommodation requests led to her termination. As with the discrimination claim, the evidence - 18 - Case No. 21-5959, Sublett v. Masonic Homes of Kentucky, Inc. Sublett provides for the causation element of her retaliation claim is limited to temporal proximity, failure by MHK to conform to company policy regarding investigation/documentation, and “increased scrutiny” of her work. And as with the discrimination claim, this scant evidence is not enough for a reasonable jury to conclude that Sublett has sufficiently proved causation. Thus, the retaliation claim fails.