Background
Hagen O’Brien, a compensation claims specialist at the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation, alleged that his workload increased during the COVID-19 period and worsened his anxiety and depression. In 2021, after discipline over an email and communications with supervisors about his workload, O’Brien requested that work be redistributed as an accommodation for his anxiety and stress. He later sought to continue teleworking based on an asserted autoimmune condition and his husband’s immunocompromised status.
The Bureau placed O’Brien on a 14-day action plan that required in-office work. He left work on July 29, 2021, and began disability leave. O’Brien sued in the Court of Claims alleging disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, retaliation, and sexual-orientation discrimination. The Court of Claims granted summary judgment to the Bureau on all claims.
The Court’s Holding
The Tenth District affirmed summary judgment on O’Brien’s telework-accommodation claim. The evidence did not show that the Bureau knew of an autoimmune condition requiring remote work before his July 23 communication, and O’Brien began extended leave before providing the anticipated supporting medical documentation or completing the interactive process.
But the court reversed summary judgment on the claim that the Bureau failed to accommodate O’Brien by redistributing his workload. Construing the evidence in his favor, a factfinder could conclude that he had a disproportionate share of complex interstate claims and that the Bureau did not engage in a good-faith interactive process regarding his requested accommodation. The court affirmed judgment for the Bureau on the separate disability-discrimination and retaliation claims because the paid working suspension, action plan, return-to-office requirement, and asserted increased scrutiny did not constitute adverse employment actions on this record.
Key Takeaways
- A requested redistribution of work can create a triable accommodation issue when evidence supports that the employee carried a disproportionate share of complex work.
- An employer’s action plan is not necessarily an accommodation, particularly where the evidence permits a finding that it addressed performance backlog rather than disability limitations.
- A paid working suspension, short-term action plan, and loss of discretionary telework did not qualify here as materially adverse actions for discrimination or retaliation claims.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes between an employer responding to work-performance concerns and engaging in the disability-accommodation process. Employers facing an accommodation request should consider the request itself and discuss alternatives rather than treating performance management alone as a sufficient response.
The ruling also confirms that not every workplace inconvenience or corrective measure is an adverse action, while preserving fact-intensive accommodation claims for trial where the record supports a possible failure to engage in good faith.