Adrianne Popeck v. Rawlings Co. ( 2019 )

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 19a0530n.06
Case No. 19-5092
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
FILED
Oct 16, 2019
ADRIANNE POPECK, ) DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
)
Plaintiff-Appellant, )
) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
v. ) STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
) THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF
RAWLINGS, COMPANY, LLC; ) KENTUCKY
DEBRA FORD )
)
Defendants-Appellees. )
BEFORE: SUTTON, COOK, and THAPAR, Circuit Judges.
COOK, Circuit Judge. After the Rawlings Company fired Adrianne Popeck, she sued for
discrimination, retaliation, unpaid wages, and wrongful opposition to her application for
unemployment benefits. The district court granted the defendants summary judgment on most of
Popeck’s claims. We AFFIRM.
I.
Rawlings provides accounting and financial services to health insurers. In 2009, Popeck
started working for Rawlings as an auditor. In that role, she reviewed health insurance claims,
identified inaccurate ones, and re-billed the correct insurance company. At first, she prospered at
work. She landed a series of promotions, winning praise, awards, and a management position
along the way.
Case No. 19-5092, Popeck v. Rawlings Co., LLC, et al.
Beginning in 2013, however, things took a turn for the worse. That year, a doctor
diagnosed Popeck with irritable bowel syndrome (“IBS”), a digestive disease that caused her
severe stomach cramping and sudden diarrhea. Rawlings granted Popeck permission to take
intermittent leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act. The intermittent leave allowed
Popeck to arrive to work late or leave early when needed to address her IBS symptoms.
The next year, senior managers at Rawlings grew concerned with Popeck’s leadership of
her team. Popeck’s supervisor complained that her team members came in late, took excessive
breaks, left early, and generally underperformed. Popeck did not lead by example either; Popeck’s
supervisor found that she too indulged in “excessive breaks.” Concluding that she could not curb
her team’s poor work habits, Rawlings demoted Popeck from her management position back down
to an entry-level auditing position.
Throughout that year, Popeck continued to use intermittent leave under the FMLA,
exhausting her annual allotment around November. To help Popeck avoid missing work until her
FMLA leave renewed in December, Rawlings invited her to apply for an accommodation under
the Americans with Disabilities Act. Popeck’s doctor submitted the required paperwork,
identifying only one required accommodation: Popeck needed to come in late or leave early when
her IBS symptoms flared up. Rawlings approved the accommodation until Popeck could resume
FMLA leave.
Popeck’s long breaks and absences from work continued to raise eyebrows. In November
2014, Rawlings HR generalist (and defendant here) Debra Ford sent Popeck a formal notice of
disciplinary action, stating that Popeck had “accumulated excessive instances of tardiness and
leaving early.” Within a five-week period, the notice explained, she arrived to work late or
-2-
Case No. 19-5092, Popeck v. Rawlings Co., LLC, et al.
departed early fourteen times. Popeck attributed her absences to various mishaps and personal
pursuits (oversleeping, traffic, trick-or-treating with a friend’s child, etc.), none involving her IBS.
Popeck switched back to taking intermittent FMLA leave in December 2014. The
following year, Popeck’s work performance dwindled. She failed to meet her performance goal
in all but two months. That year, Popeck exhausted her FMLA leave by July. She again sought
an ADA accommodation as a bridge until her next period of FMLA eligibility. This time, however,
Rawlings denied the proposed accommodation.
Despite lacking sick leave, annual leave, FMLA leave, and ADA leave, Popeck started
missing work more than ever. In September 2015, Ford issued Popeck a second formal notice of
disciplinary action. According to Ford, Popeck’s doctor said that she “may need to come in late
or leave early on occasion” and made no mention of any need for full-day absences. The
disciplinary notice then stated that Popeck exceeded her annual FMLA leave by using all available
60 days and then accumulating an additional 33 days of absences, “resulting in a 59% absenteeism
rate.” Ford warned Popeck that she could miss no more work until she either accrued leave or her
FMLA eligibility renewed.
In November, Ford sent Popeck an email again admonishing her for taking lengthy breaks
and arriving to work late. Ford told Popeck: “This is your final warning.” Over the next several
weeks, Popeck got to work late four more times. The fourth time, Rawlings fired her, citing her
serial tardiness.
Popeck sued Rawlings and Ford, alleging that they violated: (1) the ADA and its Kentucky
state-law counterpart; (2) the FMLA; (3) Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 341.990(6)(a), a Kentucky statute
prohibiting wrongful opposition to an application for unemployment benefits; and (4) the Fair
-3-
Case No. 19-5092, Popeck v. Rawlings Co., LLC, et al.
Labor Standards Act and its state-law counterpart. The district court granted summary judgment
to the defendants on all claims except for one of Popeck’s FLSA claims. Popeck appeals.
II.
We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing the entire
record in a light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment and drawing all
reasonable factual inferences in that party’s favor. Dowling v. Cleveland Clinic Found., 593 F.3d
472, 476 (6th Cir. 2010). An entry of summary judgment stands only if “the movant shows that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
A. ADA Claims
The ADA prohibits employers from “discriminat[ing] against a qualified individual on the
basis of disability[.]” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). Popeck brings three claims under the ADA: disparate
treatment, failure to accommodate, and failure to engage in the interactive process. All three
claims require her to show that she is a “qualified individual.” See Terre v. Hopson, 708 F. App’x
221, 228 (6th Cir. 2017) (disparate treatment); Kleiber v. Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc., 485 F.3d 862,
869 (6th Cir. 2007) (failure to accommodate); Williams v. AT&T Mobility Servs. LLC, 847 F.3d
384, 395 (6th Cir. 2017) (failure to engage in the interactive process).
Under the ADA, “qualified” means the ability to “perform the essential functions” of a job
“with or without reasonable accommodation.” 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8). A “reasonable
accommodation” may include “job restructuring [and] part-time or modified work schedules.” Id.§ 12111(9)(B). But no employer need excuse a disabled employee’s performance of a job’s
“essential functions”; a proposed accommodation requesting the removal of an essential function
is per se unreasonable. Brickers v. Cleveland Bd. of Educ., 145 F.3d 846, 850 (6th Cir. 1998).
-4-
Case No. 19-5092, Popeck v. Rawlings Co., LLC, et al.
Because regular, in-person attendance constitutes an essential function of most jobs, an
employee who cannot meet a job’s attendance requirements usually cannot establish qualified-
individual status. E.E.O.C. v. Ford Motor Co., 782 F.3d 753, 761–63 (6th Cir. 2015) (en banc).
To determine whether Popeck can show qualified-individual status despite her inability to attend
work regularly and in person, we ask two questions. We start by asking whether regular, in-person
attendance constitutes an essential function for auditors at Rawlings. See Williams, 847 F.3d at
391. If so, we then ask whether Popeck proposed a reasonable accommodation that would enable
her to perform that function. See id. at 393; Ford Motor, 782 F.3d at 763.
1. Regular, In-Person Attendance
At Rawlings, auditors primarily review and audit healthcare claims. Auditors access
information about those claims from secure computers in Rawlings’s offices. Rawlings prohibits
auditors from working remotely because of the “large volume of confidential and HIPAA protected
personal information” in the claims they review. Popeck does not dispute those facts. Because all
auditing work must be done on-site, in-person attendance on a regular basis constitutes an essential
function of Popeck’s job.
Pointing to other employees that Rawlings allows to work remotely, Popeck sees a factual
dispute about whether in-person attendance constitutes an essential function. But Popeck ignores
a key difference: Those other employees work in IT, not auditing. Rawlings occasionally permits
certain IT workers remote access from home during nights and weekends. Rawlings has never
allowed auditors accessing confidential information, like Popeck, to work remotely. Popeck’s
inapt comparison creates no genuine dispute of fact.
-5-
Case No. 19-5092, Popeck v. Rawlings Co., LLC, et al.
2. Reasonable Accommodation
We turn to whether Popeck proposed a reasonable accommodation that would enable her
to attend work in person regularly. See Ford Motor, 782 F.3d at 763. In Ford Motor, we held the
IBS-afflicted plaintiff’s proposed accommodation—working from home for up to four days a
week—unreasonable because it was tantamount to an exemption from the regular, in-person
attendance requirement. Id.
Here, Popeck proposes an accommodation that seems more modest on its face: occasional
flexibility to arrive late and leave early when her IBS symptoms flare. Even assuming
(contrafactually) that Popeck’s IBS caused all of her tardiness, early departure, excessive break-
taking, and full-day absences, authorizing Popeck to arrive late or leave early on occasion would
not have come close to solving her attendance problem. Recall that by the end of her employment,
Popeck missed work nearly 60% of the time. Because she evidently requires vastly more flexibility
and time off than she proposes, Popeck fails to suggest an accommodation that would enable her
to attend work in person regularly. See Williams, 847 F.3d at 393–94. She thus cannot establish
that she remains “qualified” for her job. Ford Motor, 782 F.3d at 761. Absent such a showing,
Popeck cannot sustain her ADA claims. The district court correctly granted summary judgment
to the defendants on those claims.
B. Confidentiality Violation under the ADA
Popeck argues that she brought a claim alleging that Rawlings violated the ADA’s
confidentiality provisions and that the district court erred in failing to consider it. Rawlings
responds that Popeck brought no such claim because she raised the confidentiality provisions for
the first time in moving for summary judgment.
-6-
Case No. 19-5092, Popeck v. Rawlings Co., LLC, et al.
Popeck’s complaint only off-handedly mentions the ADA’s confidentiality provisions.
She alleges that Rawlings employees reviewed her “confidential FMLA and ADA paperwork,”
that Popeck did not authorize this, and that those alleged actions “violate[d] the company’s
confidentiality policies.” Those allegations address Rawlings’s purported violation of its internal
policies, not the ADA’s confidentiality provisions. Besides, Popeck presents those allegations
during the general narrative portion of her complaint; she fails to link them to any specific claim.
The oblique reference to confidential ADA paperwork did not notify the defendants of a standalone
claim founded on the ADA’s confidentiality provisions. Parties may not obtain relief on legal
claims raised for the first time in summary judgment briefings, so we will not consider Popeck’s
argument here. See Tucker v. Union of Needletrades, Indus., & Textile Emps., 407 F.3d 784, 789
(6th Cir. 2005).
C. FMLA Interference Claim
The FMLA forbids employers’ interfering with an entitled employee’s exercise of rights
under the act. 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(1). In the district court, Popeck advanced multiple theories of
how Rawlings interfered with her FMLA rights. But her opening brief discusses only one theory,
thereby abandoning the others. See Gehrisch v. Chubb Grp. of Ins. Cos., 645 F. App’x 488, 494
(6th Cir. 2016).
Popeck argues that Rawlings violated its regulatory duty to designate certain instances of
leave as ADA leave rather than FMLA leave. She cites 29 C.F.R. § 825.702, which states that, as
between the FMLA and ADA, “[a]n employer must . . . provide leave under whichever statutory
provision provides . . . greater rights” to the employee. Id. § 825.702(a). But Popeck established
no entitlement to ADA leave, so Rawlings had no duty to grant her leave under that statute. The
district court correctly rejected Popeck’s claim.
-7-
Case No. 19-5092, Popeck v. Rawlings Co., LLC, et al.
D. Retaliation Claims
Popeck alleges that Rawlings retaliated against her—by demoting and then firing her—for
engaging in protected activity under the ADA and the FMLA. To establish a prima facie case of
retaliation, Popeck must show: (1) she availed herself of a protected right; (2) Rawlings knew she
was doing so; (3) she suffered an adverse employment decision; and (4) a causal connection existed
between Popeck’s invocation of her rights and Rawlings’s adverse action. See Seeger v. Cincinnati
Bell Tel. Co., 681 F.3d 274, 283 (6th Cir. 2012) (FMLA); Hibbler v. Reg’l Med. Ctr. at Memphis,
12 F. App’x 336, 340 (6th Cir. 2001) (ADA).
If Popeck makes this prima facie showing, Rawlings must then produce a legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. See Penny v. United Parcel Serv., 128 F.3d 408, 417 (6th
Cir. 1997). If Rawlings offers that explanation, Popeck needs to show that Rawlings’s reason
serves only as “a pretext to hide unlawful retaliation.” Michael v. Caterpillar Fin. Servs. Corp.,
496 F.3d 584, 597 (6th Cir. 2007).
Even if Popeck established a prima facie case, Rawlings put forward legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons for demoting and firing her. Rawlings demoted Popeck because her
excessive breaks during the workday interfered with her leadership of her team. During her
demotion meeting, Popeck did not deny that she took excessive breaks or suggest that the breaks
related to her IBS. Her supervisor explained that he “decided to demote [Popeck] based on her
frequent, extended breaks, which caused her to be unable to fulfill her leadership duties as a Team
Lead.” Rawlings thus had a legitimate reason for demoting Popeck. See Bowie v. Advanced
Ceramics Corp., 72 F. App’x 258, 263 (6th Cir. 2003) (concluding that lack of leadership and
inappropriate on-the-job breaks constitute legitime grounds for demotion).
-8-
Case No. 19-5092, Popeck v. Rawlings Co., LLC, et al.
Same goes for Rawlings’s decision to dismiss Popeck for her serial tardiness. Again, that’s
a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for termination. See Cecil v. Louisville Water Co., 301 F.
App’x 490, 502 (6th Cir. 2008). Popeck submitted no evidence challenging the record of her
tardiness or suggesting that her tardiness resulted solely from her IBS.
Popeck contends that Rawlings’s proffered reasons amount to mere pretext. As to her
demotion, Popeck points to evidence that the company does not strictly enforce its break policies
and that other nondisabled workers took excessive breaks without consequence. That argument,
though, does not address the crux of Rawlings’s proffered reason for demoting Popeck: her
ineffective leadership of her team. Even if Rawlings tolerated excessive breaks from other
employees, Popeck provides no evidence that Rawlings tolerated inadequate leadership from other
team leaders. She fails to rebut Rawlings’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for her demotion.
As to her termination, Popeck charges Rawlings with a “shifting” rationale, suggesting that
Rawlings’s proffered reason acted as cover for something else. But Rawlings’s reason has not
changed: it repeatedly told Popeck that she would suffer disciplinary action “up to and including
termination” for continued “tardiness.” When Rawlings fired Popeck, it contemporaneously cited
her tardiness. We discern no shifting rationales that put Rawlings’s proffered reason in doubt.
The district court correctly granted summary judgment to the defendants on Popeck’s retaliation
claims.
E. Interference with Unemployment Benefits Claim
After Rawlings fired her, Popeck applied for unemployment benefits. In her application,
she alleged that Rawlings fired her because it refused to accommodate her disability. Ford, on
behalf of Rawlings, responded to Popeck’s unemployment application, asserting that the company
fired Popeck because of her absenteeism, tardiness, and excessive breaks. Ford also represented
-9-
Case No. 19-5092, Popeck v. Rawlings Co., LLC, et al.
that Popeck submitted no paperwork establishing a disability, so Rawlings had no duty to
accommodate her.
Popeck contends that the portion of Ford’s response about Popeck’s disability paperwork
constitutes a false statement to the Kentucky Division of Unemployment Insurance, violating Ky.
Rev. Stat. Ann. § 341.990(6)(a). That statute provides that “[a]ny person who knowingly makes
a false statement or representation . . . to prevent or reduce the payment of benefits to any worker
entitled thereto . . . [is] guilty of [a felony or misdemeanor, depending on the amount withheld].”
Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 341.990(6)(a). The Kentucky Supreme Court has held that this ostensibly
criminal statute (in combination with another state statute) creates a private right of action for
claimants against purveyors of false information when the false information leads to denial of
benefits. See Hickey v. Gen. Elec. Co., 539 S.W.3d 19, 25 (Ky. 2018).
Popeck argues that Rawlings and Ford violated this statute when Ford submitted paperwork
stating that Popeck “has not submitted paperwork establishing a disability.” To survive summary
judgment, Popeck must cite facts suggesting that Ford offered the disputed statement with the
intention of preventing Popeck from receiving unemployment benefits. See Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann.
§ 341.990(6)(a). To that end, Popeck points to a smattering of circumstantial evidence: Rawlings
granted her ADA leave in 2014 after Popeck submitted similar paperwork, Popeck asked to have
her disability matters handled by a different HR generalist, Ford failed to attend the state agency
hearing that determined Popeck’s right to benefits, Rawlings did not contest the benefits of another
worker fired for misconduct, and so on. In the aggregate, Popeck contends, she has proffered
enough evidence to warrant putting the issue of Ford’s and Rawlings’s intent to a jury. Her
offering of irrelevant and nonprobative facts, however, fails to move the needle; Popeck cites no
evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that Ford sought to prevent Popeck
- 10 -
Case No. 19-5092, Popeck v. Rawlings Co., LLC, et al.
receiving benefits. Indeed, the only direct evidence of Ford’s intent stands unrebutted: Popeck’s
doctor certified that Popeck’s IBS caused no substantial limitation to a major life activity (a
necessary showing to qualify for ADA protection), Ford testified in her deposition that she relied
on the doctor’s certification in determining that Popeck’s paperwork did not establish a disability,
and Ford “believed the statements to be true[.]” The district court correctly granted summary
judgment to the defendants on this claim.
F. Popeck’s Other Claims
In the district court, Popeck also asserted claims under the Kentucky Wage and Hour Act,
the Kentucky Civil Rights Act, the FLSA, and sought a declaration that Rawlings had forfeited its
overtime exemption. Having failed to make any reference in her opening brief to any of these
claims, Popeck abandoned them. Gehrisch, 645 F. App’x at 494.
III.
We AFFIRM.
- 11 -