Background
Dawn Wortham, a Detroit police officer, sustained back and leg injuries in an off-duty automobile accident and spent years performing restricted-duty clerical work. After an independent medical examination cleared her to return to full duty with modest restrictions, she experienced psychological distress and later returned to restricted duty. Another automobile accident in 2021 led to extended sick leave.
In 2022, the police department learned that an independent medical examiner had cleared Wortham to return to work. Her commander ordered her to report for duty or provide updated medical documentation supporting claimed restrictions. Wortham repeatedly failed to report for duty or submit current forms, and Detroit terminated her employment. Her doctor supplied forms describing substantial physical limitations only after the termination.
Wortham pursued ADA claims for retaliation, intentional discrimination, and failure to accommodate. The district court granted Detroit summary judgment on retaliation, and a jury found for the City on the remaining claims. The court then denied Wortham’s motions for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial.
The Court’s Holding
The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment on retaliation. Assuming Wortham could establish a prima facie case, Detroit offered a legitimate, nonretaliatory reason for firing her: she failed to report for duty and did not provide requested medical documentation. Wortham failed to show pretext because the City reasonably and honestly relied on the information available when it made its decision. Documentation prepared after the termination did not undermine that honest belief.
The court also upheld the jury’s verdict on failure to accommodate and intentional discrimination. The jury could reasonably find that Wortham never properly initiated the accommodation process because she did not provide current verification of her claimed disabilities despite repeated requests. The same evidence permitted the jury to conclude that Detroit fired her for failing to provide documentation, not because of disability.
Wortham did not establish plain error in the jury instructions, including the instruction on undue hardship. Her allegations of fraud at trial also failed because she had not presented them to the district court, sought a mistrial, or otherwise preserved them, and because the allegations largely attempted to relitigate evidentiary disputes resolved at trial.
Key Takeaways
- An employer may request current medical verification before providing a disability accommodation, and an employee who fails to supply it may not have properly initiated the accommodation process.
- Under the honest-belief rule, an employment decision is not pretextual when the employer reasonably relied on the particularized facts available when it acted, even if later evidence suggests that the decision may have rested on a mistake.
- Claims of trial misconduct generally must be raised promptly in the district court; a party cannot await the verdict and then seek Rule 60 relief without first requesting corrective action.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that ADA accommodation duties depend on cooperation in the interactive process. An employee’s objections to returning to work do not necessarily constitute a sufficient accommodation request when the employer reasonably requires medical forms verifying the disability and restrictions.
The opinion also reinforces the evidentiary and procedural hurdles facing post-verdict challenges. Courts evaluate pretext from the decisionmaker’s contemporaneous knowledge, while unpreserved objections to instructions or alleged trial misconduct rarely justify reversal.