Background
Maria Smith worked for Michigan Bell Telephone Company and requested a work-from-home accommodation due to pregnancy and COVID-19 risks. She received the accommodation but faced difficulties with equipment delivery and received an attendance counseling warning. Two years later, she voluntarily resigned and sued for discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The district court granted summary judgment for the employer.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the grant of summary judgment de novo. It held that Smith’s discrimination and retaliation claims failed because she voluntarily resigned and did not prove constructive discharge. To prove constructive discharge, Smith needed to show working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person would feel compelled to quit. The court found that equipment delays and a single attendance counseling warning were far from intolerable. Furthermore, Smith failed to establish she was disabled under the ADA. The court noted that normal pregnancies are not disabilities and Smith presented no evidence of abnormal complications, only ordinary risks shared by all pregnant patients.
Our job is to confirm that [Smith’s] work conditions were indeed hellish, or at least close to it.
Tchankpa v. Ascena Retail Grp., Inc., 951 F.3d 805, 815 (6th Cir. 2020)
What it means going forward
The ruling reinforces that ordinary pregnancy risks do not automatically qualify as disabilities under the ADA and that isolated workplace friction does not meet the high bar for constructive discharge.