May v. Delta Air Lines

Background

Randall J. May worked as a ramp agent for Delta beginning in April 2016. He first held a year-round, part-time Ready Reserve Ramp Agent position, working three days per week. In November 2017, he moved to a Seasonal Ready Reserve Ramp Agent position. That position required availability for up to 40 hours per week during peak seasons, and Delta did not offer part-time schedules for it.

For the 2018 summer season, May received a five-day-per-week schedule. After several weeks, he asked to work one fewer day per week. He later requested an accommodation based on bipolar affective disorder, supported by a psychiatrist’s certification limiting him temporarily to three days per week. Delta told him that a three-day schedule was unavailable for the seasonal position and that he could no longer continue in that position. Delta also directed him toward unpaid leave and its program for helping employees find other positions.

May was on unpaid leave from July 3 through July 19, 2018. Delta then moved him to a nonseasonal Ready Reserve Ramp Agent position with a three-day-per-week schedule at the same hourly rate. During the fall shift-bidding process, Delta offered him other three-day schedules, but May preferred positions assigned to particular airport gates. He kept a four-day schedule and planned to trade one day with a coworker so he could work three days per week at a particular gate.

On July 2, 2018, a Delta manager reported that May had said something about having not “blown up” anyone. Delta security questioned May because the statement could be understood as a threat. May testified that the security officer said, “Well, it seems like you need your meds rechecked.” Delta sent May home with pay, collected his badges and parking permit, and later confirmed that he was not terminated. May resigned effective December 16, 2018. He filed an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge before resigning, and the agency later issued a no-cause finding and a right-to-sue letter.

Claims and Analysis

May claimed that Delta failed to provide a reasonable accommodation, subjected him to disability-based harassment, and constructively discharged him. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, which asks whether the record shows no genuine dispute over an important fact and whether one party is entitled to judgment under the law.

Failure to accommodate. The court held that full-time work was an essential function of the seasonal ramp-agent position. It relied on Delta’s written policy, the seasonal operational demands, the position’s treatment as a full-time-equivalent position in Delta’s budgeting system, and the risk of understaffing if an employee worked fewer hours. Because May’s medical restriction limited him to three eight-hour days per week, he could not perform that position’s essential functions. The Americans with Disabilities Act did not require Delta to create a new part-time seasonal position.

The court also held that May had not shown an adverse employment action for purposes of his accommodation claim. Delta provided temporary unpaid leave, transferred him to a nonseasonal position that allowed a three-day schedule, and later offered other three-day shifts. The court stated that an employer must provide a reasonable accommodation, not necessarily the accommodation an employee prefers. It therefore granted Delta summary judgment on the failure-to-accommodate claim.

Harassment. The court held that the July 2 events did not amount to disability-based harassment under the Americans with Disabilities Act. It found that Delta’s security questioning was a response to a statement that could reasonably be understood as a threat, rather than evidence of disability discrimination. The security officer’s comment about having May’s medication rechecked was an isolated incident and was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile or abusive work environment. The court also found that retaining May’s badges and parking permit was consistent with Delta’s practice for employees expected to be away from work and that May was told he remained employed. The court granted Delta summary judgment on this claim.

Constructive discharge. May argued that he was forced to resign because Delta required him to participate in the shift-bidding process to obtain an accommodation. The court held that he had not exhausted this claim through the required administrative process because his Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge did not include the later events connected to his resignation. It also held that the claim was not included in his complaint. Finally, the court stated that, even if the claim were properly before it, the evidence did not show intolerable working conditions or that Delta intended to force May to quit.

Disposition

The court denied Randall J. May’s motion for summary judgment, granted Delta Air Lines, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the complaint. The order did not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.