Dentons Digest
On May 17, 2024, in Duvall v. Salem Place Nursing & Rehab. Ctr., Inc., No. 4:23-CV-00036-BSM (E.D. Ark. May 17, 2024), the Eastern District of Arkansas granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment on the employee’s claims of disability discrimination, among other things. The district court reasoned that the employee failed to show that the employer terminated her based on any alleged disability because, at the time of her termination, the employee’s doctor had cleared her to return to work without restrictions, and the employee’s scheduling requests were based on her personal class schedule and not on any alleged disability. This case serves as a reminder for employers that failure to return to work after medical clearance is a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for terminating an employee’s employment.
Case Background
Lashana Duvall sued her former employer, Salem Place Nursing & Rehab Center, Inc., and alleged that the employer discriminated against her based on her disability and race discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”), Title VII, and the Arkansas Civil Rights Act (“ACRA”). Id. at 4.
Salem hired Duvall in September 2020. Id. at 1. At the start of her employment, Salem apprised Duvall of its policies and procedures, which require attendance for the safety and well-being of its residents. Id. In December 2020, Duvall injured her shoulder while lifting a resident. Id. Following initial treatment, she returned to work on light duty status. Id. In October 2021, Duvall underwent surgery on her shoulder and, after the surgery, her doctor placed her on non-work status until January 27, 2022. Id. at 2.
In February 2022, Salem’s Human Resources Director informed Duvall that the company intended to terminate her employment because she failed to return to work. Id. However, Duvall and Salem mutually understood that Duvall was still employed at the time. Id.
Several months later, around May 14, 2022, Duvall began a master’s degree program, which conflicted with her regular work schedule at Salem. Id. One week later, on May 31, 2022, Duvall’s doctor lifted all physical restrictions and allowed Duvall to return to work. Id. Duvall and Salem then attempted to negotiate a mutually agreeable schedule but failed to reach any resolution. Id. at 3.
On June 18, 2022, Duvall contacted Salem about scheduling options for work. Id. at 3. Four days later, on June 22, 2022, Duvall notified Salem that she had an x-ray because she still had weakness in her shoulder, and that she would update Salem on her return after she heard from her doctor. Id. The following day, June 23, 2022, Salem terminated Duvall’s employment because she failed to accept the scheduling options it had offered. Id.
At the time of her termination, Duvall had full clearance for work and had not made an ADA accommodations request for her alleged shoulder weakness, as Salem’s employment policies required. Id. In addition, at the time of her termination, Duvall had not been treated by any doctor who recommended that she not work because of a medical condition. Id. at 4.
The District Court’s Ruling
The district court granted Salem’s motion for summary judgment in its entirety. Specifically, the district court found that Duvall failed to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination because she did not show that she had a disability as defined by the ADA. The district court reasoned that it was undisputed at the time Salem terminated Duvall’s employment, Duvall’s doctor had cleared her to return to work without restrictions. The district court further reasoned that Duvall’s scheduling requests were based on her class schedule and not on any injury to her shoulder.
The district court further found that Salem presented a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for Duvall’s termination – the company had “a legitimate interest in having its employees actually show up for work” -and that Duvall failed to show that Salem’s reason for termination was pretextual.
Key Takeaways for Employers
Employers should attempt to maintain open communication with their employees during their medical leave so they know when the employee is expected to return to work. As this case illustrates, if an employee is cleared medically and simply chooses not to return to work, with proper documentation, the employer may have a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for terminating their employment.
