 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
McClenaghan v. Ohio Dep't of Commerce2/14/2005
ars the initial burden of proposing an accommodation and showing that accommodation is objectively reasonable." Cassidy v. Detroit Edison Co. (6th Cir. 1998), 138 F.3d 629, citing Monette v. Electronic Data Systems, Corp. (6th Cir. 1996), 90 F.3d 1173, 1183.
{ } Plaintiff testified that he had received the January 2001 revised ADA policy (Defendant's Exhibit J) and signed a receipt (Defendant's Exhibit K) acknowledging that fact. The ADA policy included a section explaining the procedure an employee should follow when requesting an accommodation. Although plaintiff contends that he submitted his request, the letter plaintiff submitted was titled "employee suggestion." (Plaintiff's Exhibit 23.) Additionally, this letter was submitted on February 27, 2001, almost four months before plaintiff's physician issued permanent work restrictions on June 22, 2001.
{ } The court finds that such evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate that plaintiff ever requested an accommodation from defendant. Where there is credible evidence that an employee knew or should have known the proper method for requesting an accommodation, but nonetheless failed to provide the employer with any necessary information, the employee is precluded from claiming that the employer violated R.C. Chapter 4112.
{ } In addition to his disability discrimination claim, plaintiff alleges that defendant violated the public policy of Ohio when his employment was terminated. The court finds that the public policy of Ohio regarding plaintiff's termination is codified in R.C. Chapter 4112. As discussed above, plaintiff failed to show that he suffered from a disability within the meaning of R.C. Chapter 4112. Accordingly, the court finds that there is no merit to plaintiff's public policy claim.
{ } For the foregoing reasons, the court finds that plaintiff has not proven any of his claims by a preponderance of the evidence and accordingly, judgment shall be rendered in favor of defendant.
JUDGMENT ENTRY
This case was tried to the court on the issue of liability. The court has considered the evidence and, for the reasons set forth in the decision filed concurrently herewith, judgment is rendered in favor of defendant. Court costs are assessed against plaintiff. The clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal.
FRED J. SHOEMAKER Judge
|