Johnson v. Ford Motor Co., Case No. 17-cv-11412

Decision Date02 January 2019
Docket NumberCase No. 17-cv-11412
PartiesRANDONA JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Michigan Corporation, Defendant.
CourtUnited States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Michigan)

Paul D. Borman United States District Judge

Anthony P. Patti United States Magistrate Judge

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 38)

In this failure to accommodate action under the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et. seq. ("the ADA") and the Michigan Persons With Disabilities Civil Rights Act, Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.1101 et. seq. ("the PWDCRA"), Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Ford Motor Company (Defendant or "Ford"), refused to accommodate his "eight hour maximum work per shift/ forty hours maximum work per week" medical restriction when Plaintiff sought to return to work as a process coach (production supervisor) at Ford's Flat Rock Assembly Plant ("FRAP"), and refused to engage with him in the interactive process, during a nine-month period from July 2015 through March 2016. Plaintiff has been clear that his failure to accommodate claim involves a "closed period" of time, from July 2015 through March 2016, after which time Ford did reemploy the Plaintiff as a process coach. Plaintiff makes no claim related to the time period after April 2016, "after which time . . . Defendant did allow Plaintiff to return to work" with restrictions. (Pl.'s Resp. 6, PgID 677.)

Before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 38.) Plaintiff filed a Response (ECF No. 43) and Defendant filed a Reply (ECF No. 44). The Court held a hearing on November 28, 2018. For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS Defendant Ford's Motion for Summary Judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff was hired by Ford as a process coach at FRAP on November 19, 2012. (ECF No. 38-2, Def.'s Mot. Ex. 1, Nov. 3, 2017 Deposition of Mr. Randona Johnson 56:4-6.) Process coaches at FRAP report to a Team Manager. Plaintiff's Team Manager from his start date until January 1, 2013, was James Glass. (Def.'s Mot. Ex. 4, Aug. 8, 2018 Declaration of James Glass ¶ 4.) Effective January 2, 2013, Carl Jones took over as Plaintiff's Team Manager. (Glass Decl. ¶ 4.)

On October 17, 2013, Plaintiff began a leave of absence for medical reasons, specifically back pain and high blood pressure, that continued through April 28, 2014. (Johnson Dep. 75:9-76:17.) During this leave, on or about December 10, 2013,Plaintiff began treating with Dr. Emmanuel Dizon as his primary care physician. (Johnson Dep. 83:16-84:5; Def.'s Mot. Ex. 5, March 29, 2018 Deposition of Emmanuel Dizon, M.D. 8:4-7.) Dr. Dizon referred Plaintiff to Dr. Lee, a neurologist, and Plaintiff returned to work at FRAP on April 28, 2014, with a restriction to "light duty work," and a four hour per day work maximum for a period of four weeks. (Johnson Dep. 78:20-79:5; Dizon Dep. 15:5-16:22, 20:16-23:7.) FRAP was able to accommodate Plaintiff's restrictions at that time. (Johnson Dep. 78:20-80:20.)

On January 27, 2015, Plaintiff began another leave of absence, again due to aggravation of his back pain and hypertension, as well as depression. (Johnson Dep. 80:21-81:15.) With regard to his depression, Plaintiff had one appointment with a mental health provider but never returned. (Johnson Dep. 81:21-83:15.) Plaintiff remained on medical leave until May 12, 2015, when he was transitioned to inactive or off-roll status. (Def.'s Mot. Ex. 3, Aug. 7, 2018 Declaration of David Scruggs ¶ 3; Def.'s Mot. Ex. 2, Aug. 13, 2018 Declaration of Joseph Closurdo ¶ 6; Def.'s Mot. Ex. 6, Sept. 4, 2018 Declaration of Julia Baumhart Ex. A, Aug. 24, 2015 Letter to Randona Johnson from Ford Human Resources ("8/24/15 HR letter".)1 Plaintiffacknowledges that he continued to collect his full disability pay throughout the relevant nine-month period, but complains that this was only "roughly 50% of Plaintiff's regular wage income." (Pl.'s Resp. 11, PgID 682.)

Thus, when Plaintiff was transitioned to inactive status in May, 2015, he no longer held an "allocated" position at FRAP and his position was filled. In sworn answers to Plaintiff's Second Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents, Ford states that as a plant department, FRAP "cannot exceed the number of heads allocated to it," and that at the time Plaintiff attempted to return to work on July 13, 2015, "he had been moved to inactive status, at which time he ceased to hold an allocated position." (Def.'s Mot. Ex. 10, PgID 619-20.) Mr. Closurdo explains in his Declaration that "Ford's corporate finance function sets manpower levels by department and manufacturing facility," and as the FRAP "Final Area Manager" he was not permitted to exceed the manpower allocation dictated by corporate finance. (Closurdo Decl. ¶ 7.) This meant that if Mr. Closurdo "did not have an open processcoach position, [he] could not hire or reinstate a process coach until such time as a position opened, regardless of how many hours the process coaches were having to work." (Id.) When Mr. Closurdo arrived at FRAP on August 1, 2015, "all production shifts were running 10.5 to 11.5 hours, meaning process coaches were working 12 to 13.5 hour shifts five days a week plus some weekends." (Id.; Def.'s Reply Ex. 12, Supplemental Declaration of Joseph Closurdo, Ex. A (FRAP Production Shifts for hourly workers the period July 2015-April 2016) and Ex. B (salaried time records for process coaches at FRAP July 2015-April 2016).)

Although this intense schedule persisted for some time, Mr. Closurdo had no open process coach positions and could not add one because he could not exceed the corporate finance manpower allocation. (Closurdo Decl. ¶ 7.) Mr. Closurdo was authorized, however, to obtain temporary relief when necessary for short periods of time (usually two weeks) by utilizing process coaches from other plants who were under temporary layoffs. When filling in at FRAP, these "borrowed" coaches continued to collect their salaries from their home plants, "allowing FRAP to benefit from some temporary relief that would not otherwise be available to it." (Id.) "Each time Plaintiff attempted to return to work once he went to inactive status in May 2015, there were no allocated positions open until his April 2016 attempt." (Id.) Mr. Closurdo testifies in his Declaration that, since his assignment to FRAP in August,2015, FRAP had its first process coach manpower opening in April, 2016. (Closurdo Decl. ¶ 6.) Plaintiff acknowledged in his deposition his understanding that the FRAP was allocated a manpower maximum that they could not exceed. (Johnson Dep. 173:18-25.) Although Plaintiff believed that there were "open" positions when he sought reemployment after May, 2015, he acknowledged that these "positions" were being filled by Ford with senior process coaches from other Ford plants. (Id. at 156:10-157:8.) Those fill-in process coaches were paid from previously approved budget allocations at their home plant.

On July 13, 2015, seven months after beginning his January, 2015 medical leave, Plaintiff did attempt to seek reemployment with Ford, with a restriction from Dr. Dizon limiting him to working maximum eight-hour shifts and a maximum 40-hour work week through December 31, 2015. (Johnson Dep. 147:11-148:7; Pl.'s Resp. Ex. 5, 7/13/15 FRAP Manufacturing Pass - Health Center Communication.) Plaintiff went to FRAP and presented his Manufacturing Pass indicating his 8-hour/shift, 40-hour/week restriction to the Team Manager at that time, James Glass. At that time, FRAP had no open process coach positions, and process coaches were working 12 to 13.5 hour shifts. (Closurdo Decl. ¶ 7; Glass Decl. ¶ 5.) Mr. Glass testified in his Declaration that he was not aware at the time that there were no process coach manpower openings to fill at that time but he indicated on Plaintiff's Return toWork Form "NWA," or no work available, because being able to work "any shift as well as rotating shifts and weekends," was an essential element of the process coach position and "all production shifts were running a minimum of 10.5 to 11.5 hours and a production workweek minimum of 52.5 hours, which meant process coach shifts were running a minimum of 12 to 13.5 hours and the workweek minimum of 60 to 67.5 hours." (Glass Decl. ¶ 5.) Because Plaintiff's return to work restriction limited him to 8 hour shifts and a 40 hour work week, and because there were no 8-hour process coach shifts available, Glass indicated there was no work available. (Id.)

Plaintiff attempted to return to work again on January 20, 2016, with the same eight-hour shift, 40-hour work week restriction, and was again told FRAP was unable to accommodate his restrictions due to production shift schedules. (Johnson Dep. 162:25-164:1, Dep. Ex. 18.) According to Ford, there were still no open allocated positions for process coaches and production shifts were running a minimum of 10 hours, therefore Plaintiff could not be reinstated with his restrictions. (Closurdo Decl. ¶¶ 6-7; Glass Decl. ¶ 5.) On this occasion, Plaintiff's Manufacturing Pass health form, indicating that there was no work available that could accommodate Plaintiff's eight-hour shift/40-hour work week restriction, was signed by Team Manager Jameka Atkinson. (Def.'s Reply, Ex. 12, Suppl. Closurdo Decl. ¶ 7.) According to Plaintiff, he made two more attempts to return to work with the same restriction, once inFebruary 2016 and again in March 2016, but due to the same conditions at FRAP, no open process coach positions and the inability to accommodate an eight-hour shift restriction, Plaintiff was not returned to work. (Johnson Dep. 149:17-151:1, 164:6-165:9, Dep. Ex. 19; Closurdo Decl. ¶¶ 6, 7, 9; Glass Decl. ¶¶5, 7.)

Plaintiff asserts, and provides in support a collection of Declarations from FRAP employees who were working at FRAP during the July 2015-March 2016 time frame, that there was work available for Plaintiff during the nine-month time period...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT