Sean Walsh v. at&tcorporation

The Hon. Lawrence P. Zatkoff, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of*
Michigan, sitting by designation.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 09a0094n.06
Filed: February 4, 2009
07-4002
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
SEAN WALSH et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
AT&T CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
Before: DAUGHTREY and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges; ZATKOFF, District Judge.*
PER CURIAM. Following his termination from employment at AT&T, plaintiff Sean
Walsh filed suit against that company, alleging violations of the Americans With Disabilities
Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 - 12213, the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29
U.S.C. §§ 2601 - 2654, and various Ohio state law provisions and policies. In his
complaint and amended complaint, Walsh asserted that AT&T had: fired him from his sales
position because of his ongoing battle with ulcerative colitis, in violation of both state and
federal disability laws and in violation of Ohio public policy; failed to return him to an
“equivalent position” upon his return from medical leave, in violation of the FMLA; and

-- 1 of 3 --

07-4002
Walsh v. AT&T
- 2 -
intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon him. The complaint also contained a
derivative loss-of-parental-consortium claim.
The district court granted summary judgment to AT&T on all claims. In addressing
the plaintiff ’s ADA claims under both state and federal law, the court concluded that Walsh
failed to establish a prima facie case. In support of that conclusion, the court found a lack
of proof that the ulcerative colitis “substantially limited” Walsh in a major life activity, that
the defendant had refused Walsh a reasonable accommodation for his condition, that
AT&T “regarded” the plaintiff as disabled, or that Walsh was subjected to an adverse
employment action because of his alleged disability. The district court also ruled that even
if the plaintiff could establish a prima facie case of discrimination, the defendant had
offered a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its employment action and that Walsh
had produced no evidence to show that the justification articulated by AT&T was merely
a pretext for prohibited discrimination.
Likewise, the district court rejected Walsh’s FMLA claims – under both an
entitlement/interference theory and a retaliation/discrimination theory – because the proof
showed that the employer had returned the plaintiff to an equivalent position within the
company at the end of the 12-week statutory leave period and because the record
contained no evidence that AT&T fired Walsh because of, or in retaliation for, his use of
FMLA leave. Finally, as to the plaintiff’s state law claims, the district court held that Walsh

-- 2 of 3 --

07-4002
Walsh v. AT&T
- 3 -
had failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact that would preclude judgment in
favor of the defendant.
On appeal, Walsh challenges the district court’s rulings regarding only the disability
discrimination causes of action, the FMLA claim, and a derivative state-law claim for loss
of parental consortium. After an examination of the appellate record and the briefs of the
parties, we conclude that the district judge accurately identified the relevant law and
correctly applied that law to the facts before the court. Because another full opinion by this
court would thus be duplicative and would serve no precedential purpose, we AFFIRM the
grant of summary judgment to the defendant in this matter on the basis of the extensive,
detailed discussion and the valid reasoning employed by the district court in its opinion and
order filed on July 11, 2007.

-- 3 of 3 --