This week’s blog entry focuses on an unpublished decision, Woodie v. Motorola Solutions, Inc. from the Sixth Circuit decided on March 10, 2025, here. The case highlights the importance of a person with a disability intentionally not pursuing any internal processes for requesting an accommodation. There is well reasoned dissent as well. As usual, the blog entry is divided into categories and they are: the situation; the employer did not have to provide a reasonable accommodation because the employee never asked for one; Judge Mathis concurrence and dissent focusing on why plaintiff did not have to ask for a reasonable accommodation through company’s internal processes, but would have had to engage in the interactive process; and thoughts/takeaways. Of course, the reader is free to focus on any or all of the categories.

I

The Situation

Plaintiff began working for Motorola as a Federal Systems Technologist in 2013. His work was primarily done outside of the office at customer sites. Until March 1, 2020, he traveled about 75% of the time and sometimes had to work weekends. Beginning in March 2020, Motorola required him to travel 80% of the time. Plaintiff was unhappy with the additional travel and asked his supervisor on several occasion to return to the prior arrangement. In July 2019, plaintiff informed his immediate supervisor that he had nocturnal epilepsy. Plaintiff was then directed to the company’s Occupational Health Resources Department (OHR) in the event he needed any accommodations. His supervisor even offered to contact that department for the plaintiff. Plaintiff declined the suggestion but appreciated the offer.

In June 2020, plaintiff said he needed his schedule changed because of his health. A Human Resources Business Partner told the plaintiff he could always apply for reasonable accommodation if needed and gave him the company’s reasonable accommodation policy, which contained instructions on how to file a request. Once again, plaintiff declined, appreciating the offer but not wanting to be treated any differently but just fairly.

In November of 2020, plaintiff increasingly demanded a schedule change. He gave different reasons as to why the schedule change was needed, including his disability. His group leader then suggested he should direct any accommodation request to OHR. Plaintiff never requested an accommodation through OHR while employed at Motorola.

Throughout his work at Motorola, plaintiff’s supervisors counseled him on performance and behavioral issues to no avail. After no improvement in plaintiff’s behavior, Motorola terminated his employment and classified the termination in such a way as to leave open the possibility that he could be rehired. Plaintiff received an employment offer from another company the day after his termination and began work elsewhere one month later. Plaintiff during his deposition, admitted that his behavior at Motorola was unacceptable.

Plaintiff sued under the ADA and the Ohio Civil Rights Act for failure to provide reasonable accommodations, disability discrimination, and retaliation, and Motorola successfully moved for summary judgment. Plaintiff appealed.

II

The Employer Did Not Have to Provide A Reasonable Accommodation Because The Employee Never Asked for One

1. The Sixth Circuit has consistently held that an employer is not obligated to provide an accommodation until the plaintiff has provided a proper diagnosis of her disability and requested a specific accommodation.
2. Motorola was not required to provide an accommodation because plaintiff never requested one. In fact, many of plaintiff’s requests for a schedule change had nothing to do with his disability at all.
3. While it is true that plaintiff did ask his supervisor for reduced travel schedule many times because of his disability, he never followed the internal reasonable accommodation policy to make any of that happen.
4. On numerous occasions when plaintiff requested a travel change based on his disability, he was directed to OHR in the event he needed an accommodation. Motorola personnel even offered to contact OHR on his behalf, which plaintiff declined.
5. Numerous times plaintiff was told that he had to go through OHR to request a disability accommodation. One person even alerted HR that plaintiff might be requesting a medical accommodation.
6. Plaintiff mentioned his medical condition to a Human Resources Business Partner who told him that he could always apply for reasonable accommodation if needed and gave him the OHR policy. Plaintiff again declined to do so.
7. Plaintiff was aware of Motorola’s process for requesting a disability accommodation. He was given the policy and consistently declined to contact OHR even though it was only OHR that could determine whether plaintiff was disabled and needed an accommodation.
8. At no time during his employment did plaintiff contact OHR. Therefore, plaintiff failed to request an accommodation sufficient to start the interactive process under the ADA.
9. A plaintiff cannot sit on their hands and decline to follow his employer’s reasonable accommodation policy when repeatedly directed by his supervisors to do so.

III

Judge Mathis Concurrence and Dissent Focusing on Why Plaintiff Didn’t Have to Ask for a Reasonable Accommodation through Motorola’s internal policy, but Engaging in the Interactive Process Is Another Question

1. The court said that the disability discrimination claim also failed because of his behavior at work. Therefore, Judge Mathis agrees with the majority that plaintiff could not show pretext per McDonnell Douglas.
2. Judge Mathis also agreed with the majority that the retaliation claim failed (it is unclear to me why Judge Mathis agreed with the majority on the retaliation claim in light of the rest of his dissent).
3. Whether plaintiff established a failure to accommodate claim comes down to whether he proposed or requested a reasonable accommodation, and a jury could find that plaintiff did exactly that.
4. Plaintiff asked his supervisor to change his work travel schedule to accommodate his disability.
5. EEOC Guidance says that individuals can request accommodations in a conversation or by any other mode of communication.
6. Plaintiff testified that starting in November 2020, he requested a reduced travel schedule multiple times because of his disability. Indeed, both of his supervisors admitted that plaintiff asked for work modifications because of his epilepsy. A reasonable jury could find that plaintiff’s conversations with his supervisors were accommodation requests. Therefore, that should end the inquiry into whether plaintiff requested a reasonable accommodation.
7. The majority says that plaintiff never requested an accommodation because he did not follow Motorola’s accommodation policy. However, plaintiff’s failure to follow internal policy goes to his participation in the interactive process and does not address the issue of whether he requested an accommodation in the first place.
8. Cases cited by the majority discussed the interactive process, which only occurs after (emphasis in opinion), a plaintiff requests an accommodation.
9. Failing to participate in the interactive process is a completely different thing from whether a reasonable accommodation is requested in the first place, and Sixth Circuit cases are not to the contrary.
10. Once plaintiff requested a reasonable accommodation, Motorola had a duty to engage in the interactive process. That duty requires the employer (emphasis in opinion), to initiate an informal, interactive process, in order to identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations. The process is mandatory and both parties must participate in good faith.
11. For plaintiff to establish Motorola’s failure to engage in the interactive process, plaintiff has to show that a reasonable accommodation was possible and could have been identified had the defendant engaged in the interactive process. Courts should also attempt to isolate the cause of the breakdown in the interactive process and then assign responsibility because whoever breaks down the interactive process loses.
12. Plaintiff repeatedly requested a reasonable accommodation from his supervisors starting in November 2020. However, no one at Motorola ever engaged with him in order to determine an appropriate accommodation even though Motorola had a duty to inquire further.
13. Sixth Circuit precedent as well as EEOC Guidance, both suggest that the ADA required Motorola to do more than just referred the plaintiff to human resources. The Sixth Circuit has held that an employer participate in the interactive process in good faith when it readily meets with the employee, discusses any reasonable accommodation, and suggests other possible accommodations. Here, no one at Motorola ever engaged the plaintiff to discuss his reasonable accommodation requests. Instead, his requests were ignored or he was directed to go to human resources.
14. Plaintiff’s failure to follow Motorola’s accommodation policy did not excuse Motorola from engaging in the interactive process.
15. After plaintiff started requesting an accommodation because of a disability, Motorola never asked the plaintiff to provide any medical documentation to support his claim or otherwise engage with him about his disability and his proposed accommodation. Instead, his supervisor simply ignored his requests or referred him to HR.
16. An employee’s failure to file a formal accommodation request does not end the interactive process.
17. It is absolutely true that an employer can ask an individual to fill out a form to submit a reasonable accommodation request in written form. The employer could also ask the employee provide reasonable documentation related to his disability. Further, where the employee’s disability or need for accommodation is not obvious, the employee is not entitled to an accommodation if he refuses to provide such documentation. Even so, an employer cannot ignore the initial request, and any failure by the employer to initiate or participate in an informal dialogue with the individual after receiving a request for reasonable accommodation could still result in liability for failure to provide a reasonable accommodation, which is exactly what Motorola did in this case.

IV

Thoughts/Takeaways

1. Judge Mathis agrees with the granting of summary judgment on the discriminatory discharge and retaliation claims but disagrees with the majority’s grant of summary judgment on the failure to accommodate claim.
2. The Sixth Circuit uses the direct evidence test to analyze failure to accommodate claims. Such a test requires that a plaintiff show that he is an otherwise qualified person with a disability. A plaintiff must propose a reasonable accommodation in order to succeed in doing that.
3. If you are looking for preventive law approach, adopting the dissent’s approach is definitely the better way to go. It also makes conceptual sense to distinguish between requesting the accommodation, which the plaintiff most certainly did, and the engaging in the interactive process, which the plaintiff may or may not have done by rejecting entreaties to contact OHR.
4. The Sixth Circuit in this case is mistaken that a proper diagnosis of a disability is required when requesting a reasonable accommodation. You most certainly are trying to figure out whether the reasonable accommodation relates to a disability as defined by the ADA and whether that reasonable accommodation will get the person to the same starting line, but that is not the same thing as saying that you have to supply a diagnosis. It is more accurate to say that a plaintiff has to provide notification of her disability and request an accommodation.
5. The court uses the McDonnell Douglas approach. McDonnell Douglas involves figuring out whether direct or indirect evidence is involved and then using a burden shifting system. In the Sixth Circuit, failure to accommodate cases go off the direct evidence test. That may not be true in other Circuits, so be sure to check your jurisdiction. From my reading of the cases over the years, direct evidence cases are generally easier for a plaintiff to successfully fend off a summary judgment motion than indirect cases are. Also, as we have mentioned previously, it is quite debatable whether McDonnell Douglas should be used as a summary judgment tool at all. See this blog entry.
6. Not all courts live or die by McDonnell Douglas. For example, the 11^th Circuit, see here for example, uses the combination of McDonnell Douglas AND convincing mosaic to determine summary judgment.
7. The dissent’s statement of what constitutes good faith (an employer readily meeting with the employee, discussing any reasonable accommodation, and suggesting other possible accommodation), is excellent preventive law.
8. If the employee notifies the employer of the need for reasonable accommodation, it is the employer’s obligation to engage in the interactive process. The employer may or may not be able to successfully defend on the grounds that the internal policy for reasonable accommodation was never activated by the plaintiff. The dissent make strong arguments why an employer should not be able to defend on those grounds if the employer is otherwise notified of the need for a reasonable accommodation because of a disability.
9. The dissent makes clear that ignoring a reasonable accommodation request is done at the employer’s peril. It most certainly helps if you have an internal policy. Here, the plaintiff consistently refused to operate under that internal policy.
10. An employer may request documentation to substantiate a reasonable accommodation request where the disability is not obvious (whatever that might mean is unclear), but fishing expeditions are strongly discouraged.
11. A person with a disability never overcomes a disability even with reasonable accommodations. Reasonable accommodations get the person to the same starting line as a person without a disability and also help them manage their disability. However, that is not the same thing as overcoming a disability.