Litigation Lens: When Does Night Blindness Trigger ADA Protections? The 6th Circuit Weighs In

Announcer: Welcome to the Ogletree Deakins podcast, where we provide listeners with brief discussions about important workplace legal issues. Our podcasts are for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. You can subscribe through your favorite podcast service. Please consider rating this podcast so we can get your feedback and improve our programs. Please enjoy the podcast.

Michael Nail: Ogletree podcast listeners, Michael Nail here. I’m a litigator in Ogletree’s Greenville, South Carolina office, and I’m hosting today another episode of Litigation Lens, where our Ogletree attorneys will bring the law to life with recent noteworthy employment law cases coupled with practical takeaways. As you may know, during this series, you’ll hear about real cases with real outcomes, analyzed by Ogletree lawyers across the country and numerous practice areas. And today you have the privilege of listening to an episode that’s focused on a recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which involves unique disability related issues analyzed under the ADA. And with me today is Heather Ptasznik in our Detroit office. How are you doing today, Heather?

Heather Ptasznik: I’m great. How are you today, Michael?

Michael Nail: I’m great. I really hope I pronounced your last name correctly for the listeners, but if I didn’t, please feel free to correct me. But could you please just tell the listeners a little bit about yourself and what areas you practice in at Ogletree?

Heather Ptasznik: Of course. And you got it right, Michael. I know, not a lot of vowels in that last name. But a little bit about me, I am a shareholder in our Detroit Metro office. I have been practicing employment law for going on 30 years now. I spend most of my time advising employers on challenging workplace issues that come up every day, including disability accommodation and ADA compliance. I’m very excited today to talk through this case because it’s one of those decisions that’s very easy to relate to in practice. And the takeaways are really useful for employers trying to manage risk and do the right thing.

Michael Nail: Yeah, I’m looking forward to it, too. And as I typically do, I’m going to start by giving the listener some basic facts about the case, and then I’ll turn it over to you to discuss the holding, and then we’ll both talk about the takeaway. So, some of the basic facts here, and again, these are some key facts specifically related to the night blindness issue, just to point that out for the listeners, and we’ll talk about the night blindness throughout the presentation today. But this particular plaintiff was a county employee in Shelby County, Tennessee, and she was originally hired in July of 2020 and held a number of roles. Now, pertinent to this case is her role on the care coordination team, beginning in August of 2021, where she worked alongside two colleagues and primarily delivered food and groceries to individuals in COVID-19 quarantine at a motel.

Now, the plaintiff felt unsafe working at the motel, particularly at night. She believed she witnessed illegal activity like drug dealing. She also took issue with driving at night. And although one of her previous positions with the county required some night driving, her ability to see at night deteriorated over time. Specifically, she testified at trial that night driving would create halos around the lights and make it difficult to see street and traffic lights, among other things. She also noted poor depth perception and lack of concentration, as well. Now, a couple months after she began the care coordinator team position, she was reassigned to a solo shift from 3:00 PM to 11:00 PM at the motel, and she objected based on night blindness and the fact that she would need to drive over 20 miles home in the dark, raising not only medical, but also personal safety concerns.

Initially, her manager dismissed her concerns, pointing out that the plaintiff had previously driven at night in one of her previous positions. But in response, the plaintiff stated she only did so when she was accompanied by coworkers or a police escort. Plaintiff was unable to provide a doctor’s note to support her condition, and the manager never followed up on it. Now, ultimately, the plaintiff protested her new shift and refused to return to work. A few other things happened that aren’t particularly relevant, but ultimately the company terminated the plaintiff, citing attendance issues and insubordination. And after the county in this case was unsuccessful on getting the case dismissed completely at the summary judgment stage, it went to trial and a jury found in favor of plaintiff on her ADA disability discrimination claim and ADA retaliation claim. And the county appealed, and that’s what we’re going to talk about today, what the appellate court, the Sixth Circuit did in this case. So, with that, Heather, what did the Sixth Circuit decide in this case?

Heather Ptasznik: Thank you, Michael, for summarizing the facts of the case so well. Here, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the jury verdict for the employee on all of her ADA claims related to night blindness. First, it found that the employer engaged in disability discrimination based on the employee’s night blindness, and it also found in favor of the employee that the employer had retaliated against her for having requested an accommodation related to night blindness. In sum, the court rejected the county’s argument that her night blindness was too intermittent or not limiting enough to trigger ADA protections, and it let the full jury verdict stand.

Michael Nail: Okay. And as it relates to night blindness, have you covered the key holding related to that, or were there any other issues in relation to the holding specifically referring to night blindness?

Heather Ptasznik: Well, the key holding here is that night blindness can count as a disability under the ADA, because the law is really focused on whether someone’s ability to see is meaningfully limited, not just whether they can drive, which is what the employer argued was at issue here, that it was driving that was the major life activity. The court rejected that argument. The Sixth Circuit basically said that if night blindness substantially affects a person’s vision or ability to see, it can qualify for ADA protection.

Michael Nail: Okay. And some of the listeners and a lot of employers might think if she can drive at night sometimes, she isn’t disabled. Now, why didn’t that fact defeat her claim?

Heather Ptasznik: Well, this is one of the most practical takeaways. The court explained that the ADA doesn’t require someone to be totally unable to do something. The Sixth Circuit emphasized that disability isn’t an all or nothing concept. Even if she could drive at night occasionally, the jury could still reasonably conclude that her night blindness substantially limited her ability to see in low light, which was the case here, and that was enough under the ADA.

Michael Nail: Okay. And I mentioned in the fact recitation about the evidence, the medical proof. What about that? Did she need medical proof? And if so, how much?

Heather Ptasznik: Well, here she didn’t need a stack of medical records for the jury to believe her, and that’s a really important employer lesson. The county argued that the medical record was very thin. And although the Sixth Circuit agreed that it was limited, it said it wasn’t legally insufficient. Because here, the employee gave specific testimony about what she experienced and how the condition affected her day-to-day functioning, and the jury was allowed to give credit to that. And on appeal, the Sixth Circuit is not going to second guess credibility, credibility of the employee, or reweigh the evidence. It only asks whether there was enough evidence for a reasonable jury to reach the conclusion here, and the court said that there was.

Michael Nail: Okay. And she also brought a claim for retaliation. What specifically did the court decide about that retaliation claim?

Heather Ptasznik: The court reaffirmed that requesting an accommodation is protected activity under the ADA. So, the issue here was not whether the employee ultimately proves that they’re disabled. It’s whether they made a good faith request for help. They then experienced a negative reaction because of that request. The court basically said that once an employee asks for an accommodation, employers have to be especially careful that a discipline or termination is clearly supported and well documented. Because close timing between the request for the accommodation and an adverse action can easily look retaliatory to a jury.

Michael Nail: Okay. And let’s talk about some takeaways before we sign off. A couple that I see, number one is, and this is a reminder, we’ve spoken about this on numerous podcasts as well in relation to other ADA issues, but the ADA is broadly interpreted and fact specific. It’s going to be a case-by-case analysis for the employers. Also, number two, as you mentioned, Heather, occasional functioning doesn’t eliminate the disability or ADA protection. Those are my two, but what about you? Do you have any other takeaways for the listeners?

Heather Ptasznik: Thank you, Michael, I have a few. So, one of the first things to keep in mind is that timing matters. Escalating discipline right after a request for an accommodation invites retaliation claims, even if the employer thinks that they’re justified. This case is a reminder that employers need to slow down in that moment, document carefully, and make sure that the decision-making process is consistent and well supported, because timing alone can be a very powerful piece of evidence for a jury. And I also think one of the biggest takeaways is training. Employers should consider training supervisors to recognize accommodation requests even when employees don’t use legal terms. Because there’s no special language that an employee needs to use when requesting an accommodation. And managers should consider slowing down before reacting to an accommodation request. Managers need training on communications, because casual comments can become Exhibit A in a lawsuit. The better trained frontline supervisors are on what accommodation requests look like, the less likely a request turns into a retaliation or discrimination claim.

Michael Nail: Very good points. Well, before we sign off, if you had one sentence to summarize why this case matters, what would that be, Heather?

Heather Ptasznik: I think this case matters because it reinforces that ADA protections are broadly interpreted, and employer liability often turns on timing, documentation, and the interactive process.

Michael Nail: Well, great. Well, thank you so much again, Heather, for joining me today, and we’ll see you soon.

Heather Ptasznik: Thank you.

Announcer: Thank you for joining us on the Ogletree Deakins podcast. You can subscribe to our podcast on Apple Podcasts or through your favorite podcast service. Please consider rating and reviewing, so that we may continue to provide the content that covers your needs. And remember, the information in this podcast is for informational purposes only and is not to be construed as legal advice.