Traniece Morgan, a financial associate at the Franklin Medical Center, worked for the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC) for over thirty years. She has a history of transient ischemic attacks (TIAs) and had utilized intermittent Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave since 2014 for hospitalization related to these events. In 2023, her supervisor described her conduct as aggressive and unprofessional, leading ODRC to place her on paid administrative leave pending an independent medical examination (IME). The IME concluded that Morgan had a mild neurocognitive disorder and required modified work activity to return to her job. Morgan disputed this finding, providing a doctor's note stating she was fully capable of returning to work without restrictions. ODRC accepted this note and returned her to full duty. Morgan subsequently filed suit alleging disability discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act, claiming ODRC failed to provide reasonable accommodations and failed to engage in the interactive process, despite her insistence that she did not need accommodations.
The Sixth Circuit reviewed the case de novo, focusing on whether Morgan established a prima facie case of disability discrimination under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The court noted that to succeed on a failure-to-accommodate claim, a plaintiff must show they needed an accommodation and that the employer failed to provide it. The court emphasized that the interactive process is triggered by a request for accommodation. The record showed that Morgan never requested an accommodation beyond her existing FMLA leave for hospitalization. Instead, she actively disputed the medical finding that she was disabled and insisted she could perform her job without modification. The court explained that whether the claim is viewed as an 'actual' disability claim or a 'regarded as' disability claim, the result is the same. If Morgan had an actual disability, she never sought an accommodation for it. If she was merely 'regarded' as disabled, the law does not require an employer to accommodate a disability the employee does not actually have. The court cited precedent stating that an employee who opts out of the interactive process by denying their disability cannot later claim discrimination for the employer's failure to accommodate. The court rejected Morgan's argument that ODRC failed to conduct an individualized assessment, noting that such an assessment is unnecessary when the employee has not requested accommodation and has affirmed their ability to work.
This decision reinforces that the duty to engage in the interactive process is contingent upon an employee's request for accommodation. Employees who dispute medical evaluations of their disability and assert they are fit for duty may forfeit their right to claim failure to accommodate. The ruling clarifies that an employer cannot be held liable for failing to accommodate a condition an employee denies having. Morgan's claim is dismissed, and she must pursue any remaining grievances through administrative channels rather than litigation.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download