Thompson v. Fresh Prods., LLC

• Decision Date: 15 January 2021
• Docket Number: No. 20-3060,20-3060
• Citation: 985 F.3d 509
• Parties: Cassandra THOMPSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FRESH PRODUCTS, LLC ; Dawn Shaferly, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

985 F.3d 509

Cassandra THOMPSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.FRESH PRODUCTS, LLC ; Dawn Shaferly, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 20-3060

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Argued: July 28, 2020

Decided and Filed: January 15, 2021

BOGGS, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff Cassandra Thompson brought this employment-discrimination action against her former employer, Fresh Products, LLC, and the human-resources manager of Fresh Products, Dawn Shaferly (together, "Fresh Products"), after she was laid off as part of a reduction-in-force. Thompson alleged disability discrimination, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 – 12117 ; age discrimination, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 – 634 ; race discrimination, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2 – 2000e-5 ; and disability and race discrimination, in violation of Ohio law, Ohio Rev. Code §§ 4112.01 – 4112.99. The district court granted summary judgment to Fresh Products on all claims, and Thompson appealed.

Because Thompson has not established a prima facie case of discrimination, we affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Facts

Thompson is African-American and was fifty-two years old at all times relevant to this appeal. Thompson has arthritis

, which affects her knees, back, and neck and restricts her from doing heavy lifting. Because of her inability to do heavy lifting, her doctor gave her weight restrictions at one of her previous jobs, and she sought work "that doesn't require heavy lifting." Thompson testified that she receives treatment for her arthritis, including injections, pain medication, and pain cream, and that her arthritis inhibits her ability to "[l]ive a full life." She testified that she was approved for Social Security Disability (SSD) payments in 2014 based on a primary disability of morbid obesity and a secondary disability of arthritis.¹

Fresh Products manufactures odor-control products and has a production facility in Perrysberg, Ohio. Most of its employees are entry-level production workers. According to Fresh Products’ job description, production workers perform "assembly-type functions ... utilizing various light equipment and machinery." Production workers must be able "to stand on feet for up to 10–12 hours at a time, and to occasionally reach, bend, kneel, grasp, walk, or carry."

Fresh Products hired Thompson as a production worker in July 2016, after she interviewed with Shaferly, Fresh Products’ human-resources manager, at a hiring event. Thompson did not mention her arthritis

diagnosis to Shaferly during her interview.

As a new hire, Thompson signed a "Handbook Acknowledgment," which stated:

I understand that this handbook does not imply or constitute a contract or employment agreement between Fresh Products and me. I have received the handbook, and I understand that it is my responsibility to read and comply with the policies contained in this handbook and any revisions made to it. ...

I understand that this handbook contains general statements about current Company policy, and that Fresh Products retains the right to revise or modify the terms, information, policies, and benefits at its sole discretion and at any time. I understand that the Company may, at its sole discretion, depart from policy from time to time. ...

In consideration of my employment or continued employment, I agree that any claim or lawsuit arising out of my employment with Fresh Products must be filed no more than six (6) months after the date of the employment action that is subject [sic] of the claim or lawsuit. While I understand that the statute of limitations for claims arising out of an employment action may be longer than six (6) months, I agree to be bound by the six (6) month period of limitations set forth herein and I waive any statute of limitations to the contrary. Should a court determine in some future lawsuit that this provision allows an unreasonably short period of time to commence a claim or lawsuit, the court shall enforce this provision as far as possible and shall declare the lawsuit barred unless it was brought within the minimum reasonable time within which the claim or suit should have been commenced.

When Thompson was hired, Fresh Products operated on a schedule of three eight-hour shifts per day. Thompson initially worked on the first shift, but after two months she requested, and was given, a position on the third shift. She did not have restrictions on her ability to work and was able to perform her job duties without accommodations.

Thompson testified that in October 2016, she spoke with her supervisor, Kevin Hartman, and "brought it to his attention [she] was having some issues with [her] medical condition." She testified that she mentioned the possibility of doing part-time work, and that Hartman told her he thought it was "a good idea" and that he would "speak to someone." Thompson testified that she did not hear back from Hartman about her request and that she brought it up to Shaferly later in October when Shaferly was on the production workers’ floor. She testified that she told Shaferly she would like to go part time "to get some work done on [her] back," and that Shaferly responded that she would get back to her. According to Thompson, Shaferly also said that she thought going part time was "a good idea" because "work probably wouldn't pick up [until] mid February." Thompson testified that she did not provide Hartman or Shaferly with medical documentation of her condition and did not have any other conversations with them about her request. Hartman testified that he has no recollection of Thompson raising the possibility of part-time work in October 2016, or ever mentioning her arthritis

or pain at work. Shaferly also testified that Thompson did not ask about part-time work in October. She further testified that Thompson never told her about her arthritis and never stated that she experienced pain at work because of her arthritis. In any event, Thompson continued to work full time.

Toward the end of 2016, Fresh Products began experiencing a reduction in sales. Rather than reducing employees’ hours, management decided to move to a schedule of two ten-hour shifts and reduce the number of workers. On December 8, management held an all-employees meeting to inform employees about the upcoming shift change. They did not discuss layoffs during the meeting because they hoped to minimize the number of workers, if any, who would be laid off by choosing not to fill the positions of employees who quit or were terminated before the shift change took effect. Shaferly told the employees at the meeting that management "want[ed] to get feedback," and asked all employees to fill out a survey about the new shifts. The survey asked employees two questions: first, whether they could work four ten-hour shifts per week, and if not, why; and second, which of the two ten-hour shifts they preferred.

Thompson indicated on the survey that she was unable to work the new schedule but did not provide an explanation. Thompson later testified that she did not believe the new shifts would work for her because the schedule interfered with the hours she had committed to taking care of her grandchildren. She did not communicate this to anyone at Fresh Products, and she says this schedule difficulty was not connected to her earlier request to work part time, which was due to her disability. Many other employees also responded that they could not work the new shifts "for a variety of reasons."

On December 14, Hartman sent Shaferly an email asking if Fresh Products was "offering part time work" and stating, "I have at least 2 employees that keep asking." Shaferly responded, "I only know of 1 employee, Kristen Brown, who requested part time so she could go to school." Shaferly added that she spoke to Brown, and Brown said yes to the later of the two shifts even though she didn't believe it would work for her. Shaferly testified that she did not look into whether Brown, a white woman in her early twenties, could work part time, but only asked her whether either of the new shifts could possibly work with her class schedule. She also explained that Brown had tried to work through the shift changes but ended up leaving Fresh Products that winter.

Hartman responded that "Cassandra [Thompson] continues to ask." No response from Shaferly to Hartman's second email is in the record. Hartman remembered at his deposition that Thompson was one of the employees who asked him about part-time hours after the December meeting, but he could not remember why.

In early December, Fresh Products asked its shift supervisors to create a list of employees recommended for layoffs, which management reviewed and used to make final decisions about who would be laid off. Thompson was on the list of those recommended for layoff from the third shift. On December 16, Shaferly emailed Fresh Products’ leadership about the shift supervisors’ recommendations, stating that she "ha[d] two questions about the final names." She noted that Thompson and another employee "both have pretty high productivity, low absenteeism" and suggested that they "take them off the layoff list temporarily, until we see who exits once we announce the actual hours."

When management decided that the hours for the new shifts would differ from what they had initially discussed with employees, Shaferly conducted a second, oral survey asking employees about their shift preferences.² Shaferly testified that she believes this was the first time she spoke with Thompson about working part time, and that when she asked Thompson which shift she preferred, Thompson responded, "[p]art-time." Shaferly asked Thompson to explain what she meant, and Thompson stated, "[l]ike 12:00 to 6:00 [AM] or 12:00 to 6:30 [AM]." Shaferly testified that Thompson did not explain why she wanted to work part time but...