Danielle Davis worked for PHK Staffing LLC, operating as Hollywood Casino at Kansas Speedway, for seven months. Davis, who suffered from severe asthma, experienced difficulties with attendance due to her condition, leading to her either arriving late, leaving early, or missing work altogether. After her employment ended, Davis sued Hollywood Casino under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). She alleged that the casino failed to accommodate her disability and terminated her employment because of that disability.
Factual Overview
Davis’s role at Hollywood Casino involved working as a table-games dealer and supervisor. The casino had a “no-fault attendance policy,” where employees accrued points for attendance incidents, and exceeding 12 points in a 12-month period could lead to termination.
At first, Davis asked about the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) for her asthma but learned she was ineligible until she had worked for a year. She was instead directed towards requesting an accommodation under the ADA policy. Although Davis first considered requesting an accommodation, she chose not to, hoping to comply with the attendance policy until she qualified for FMLA leave.
Davis’s asthma worsened in October 2019, leading to times when she left work early or was absent, accruing points under the attendance policy. In November 2019, Davis formally requested an accommodation, asking Hollywood Casino not to assess attendance points for asthma-related incidents and to remove points accrued in October. Alongside her request, she submitted a physician’s verification form, which recommended leave as an accommodation.
Hollywood Casino, seeking more information to assess the reasonableness of the accommodation, found Davis’s physician unresponsive. Due to insufficient information, the casino denied her accommodation request. Davis later accumulated over 12 points under the attendance policy, largely due to her asthma-related absences and tardiness. There is a dispute over whether she was fired or resigned, but her employment ended in February 2020.
Analysis
In her lawsuit, Davis claimed Hollywood Casino failed to accommodate her disability and discriminated against her by terminating her employment. The district court granted summary judgment for Hollywood Casino on both claims, leading to Davis’s appeal.
Failure to Accommodate Claim: The appellate court affirmed the district court’s decision. It concluded that Davis failed to make a prima facie case for failure to accommodate, as she did not request a plausibly reasonable accommodation. Her requests included unscheduled leave and removal of attendance points for previous asthma-related incidents. The court found that Davis’s open-ended leave request, which would allow her to miss work as needed, was not reasonable as it conflicted with the essential function of regular attendance. Furthermore, the point-removal request was deemed implausible as it sought to excuse past attendance issues, which is not a requirement under the ADA.
Disparate Treatment Claim: Regarding her disparate-treatment claim, the court assumed that Davis established a prima facie case. That said, Hollywood Casino provided a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for her termination: the violation of the attendance policy. Davis failed to show that this reason was a pretext for discrimination. There was no evidence that Hollywood Casino’s reason for termination was false, contrary to the written policy, or that Davis was treated differently from similarly situated employees who violated comparable work rules. Conclusion: The appellate court concluded that Davis did not present sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact on her ADA disability claims. Her failure-to-accommodate claim did not satisfy the prima facie requirements as her requested accommodations were not plausible. Additionally, her disparate-treatment claim did not demonstrate that Hollywood Casino’s legitimate reason for her termination was pretextual. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court’s decision to grant summary judgment to Hollywood Casino.
Schrag on Law 