Light-Duty Requests Are Protected ADA Activity, But Medical Proof and Comparator Evidence Remain Essential: Sixth Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment in Moore v. Next Generation Hospitality

Light-Duty Requests Are Protected ADA Activity, But Medical Proof and Comparator Evidence Remain Essential

Commentary on Demond Alex Moore v. Next Generation Hospitality LLC, No. 24-4050 (6th Cir. Oct. 29, 2025) (not recommended for publication)

Introduction

In this unpublished decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Next Generation Hospitality LLC, which operates King’s Inn & Suites, against former employee Demond Alex Moore. The case touches three core ADA areas: disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation. The panel (Judges Gibbons, McKeague, and Ritz; opinion by Judge Julia Smith Gibbons) held that Moore failed to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination and failure to accommodate because he did not present competent evidence that he was “disabled” under the ADA and did not show employer knowledge of a qualifying disability. It also affirmed dismissal of his retaliation claim—though clarifying that a light-duty request is protected activity—because Moore failed to show causation and, on appeal, waived developed argument on pretext.

The opinion offers practical guidance for ADA litigants: plaintiffs must furnish medical or other admissible proof of a qualifying impairment and employer knowledge, and they must satisfy the Sixth Circuit’s comparator/replacement element in discharge cases under McDonnell Douglas. Employers, in turn, are reminded that documented, non-discriminatory performance reasons can defeat both discrimination and retaliation claims absent proof of causation or pretext.

Summary of the Opinion

  • Facts and procedural posture: Moore worked in housekeeping at King’s Inn and briefly acted in a temporary supervisory capacity. Following documented incidents of tardiness, insubordination, absenteeism, and substandard work, he received disciplinary warnings in February and March 2021. On March 13, 2021, he submitted a chiropractor’s “Authorization for Light Duty” (no lifting over 30 pounds, no prolonged bending) through March 18, 2021. After a customer-complaint incident on March 18 that management described as the “last straw,” he was terminated on March 26, 2021. He sued under ADA and Ohio law; the district court granted summary judgment on all counts.
  • Disability discrimination: The Sixth Circuit held there was no direct evidence; thus, McDonnell Douglas applied. Moore failed three prima facie elements: (1) he did not present evidence that he had a qualifying disability; (4) he did not show the employer knew or had reason to know of such a disability; and (5) he did not identify a comparator or show the position remained open or that he was replaced.
  • Failure to accommodate: The claim failed at the first step for the same reason—no competent evidence of a disability or proper diagnosis provided to the employer—and for lack of a demonstrated accommodation duty triggered by employer knowledge.
  • Retaliation: Correcting the district court, the Sixth Circuit recognized that Moore’s light-duty request was protected activity. Nonetheless, the claim failed because Moore did not develop a causation or pretext argument on appeal and the employer had documented performance-based reasons independent of the protected activity.
  • Holding: Summary judgment affirmed on all claims.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

  • Summary judgment standards: Hyman v. Lewis, 27 F.4th 1233 (6th Cir. 2022) (de novo review), Young v. UPS, 575 U.S. 206 (2015), and Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) guided the court’s review, emphasizing that the nonmovant must show a genuine dispute of material fact.
  • Direct vs. circumstantial evidence: Cooper v. Dolgencorp, 93 F.4th 360 (6th Cir. 2024), Chattman v. Toho Tenax, 686 F.3d 339 (6th Cir. 2012), M.J. ex rel. S.J. v. Akron City Sch. Dist., 1 F.4th 436 (6th Cir. 2021), and Gohl v. Livonia Pub. Schs., 836 F.3d 672 (6th Cir. 2016) underscore that direct evidence must not require inferential steps; the panel found none here, channeling the case into McDonnell Douglas.
  • ADA prima facie framework: Thompson v. Fresh Prods., 985 F.3d 509 (6th Cir. 2021) and Hrdlicka v. GM, 63 F.4th 555 (6th Cir. 2023) laid out the elements, including disability, qualification, adverse action, employer knowledge, and replacement/position-open (or comparator) evidence. The court relied on Hrdlicka’s explication of the knowledge requirement and the fifth element, and on Griffin v. Sec’y of Def., 2023 WL 8437145 (6th Cir. Dec. 5, 2023) and Hoffman v. O’Malley, 849 F. App’x 535 (6th Cir. 2021) for the comparator/replacement prong.
  • Establishing “disability” and “regarded as”: The ADA definition at 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1), including major life activities under § 12102(2)(A), was central. The “regarded as” prong and “transitory and minor” affirmative defense were noted via § 12102(3) and Babb v. Maryville Anesthesiologists, 942 F.3d 308 (6th Cir. 2019); however, the case turned on Moore’s failure to establish any qualifying impairment in the first place.
  • Proof requirements for impairment: Neely v. Benchmark Family Services, 640 F. App’x 429 (6th Cir. 2016) was pivotal; bare assertions of a medical condition without supporting medical evidence cannot establish a disability. The court applied this principle to Moore’s scoliosis/back condition assertions.
  • Ohio law parallels ADA: Hostettler v. College of Wooster, 895 F.3d 844 (6th Cir. 2018), Rosebrough v. Buckeye Valley High School, 690 F.3d 427 (6th Cir. 2012), and Green v. BakeMark USA, 683 F. App’x 486 (6th Cir. 2017) guided the court to analyze Ohio Rev. Code § 4112 claims under ADA standards.
  • Failure-to-accommodate elements: Kirilenko-Ison v. Bd. of Educ., 974 F.3d 652 (6th Cir. 2020) and King v. Steward Trumbull Mem’l Hosp., 30 F.4th 551 (6th Cir. 2022) provided the framework; the court emphasized that an employer’s duty arises only with a proper diagnosis and knowledge.
  • Retaliation and protected activity: Rorrer v. Stow, 743 F.3d 1025 (6th Cir. 2014) defined the elements. Critically, A.C. ex rel. J.C. v. Shelby Cty. Bd. of Educ., 711 F.3d 687 (6th Cir. 2013), and Hurtt v. Int’l Servs., 627 F. App’x 414 (6th Cir. 2015) confirm that accommodation requests are protected acts—an error the panel corrected from the district court’s ruling, even while affirming on other grounds.
  • Evidentiary rigor and waiver: Arendale v. City of Memphis, 519 F.3d 587 (6th Cir. 2008) and Salens v. Tubbs, 292 F. App’x 438 (6th Cir. 2008) stress the need for specific, probative facts to avoid summary judgment. McPherson v. Kelsey, 125 F.3d 989 (6th Cir. 1997), United States v. Johnson, 440 F.3d 832 (6th Cir. 2006), and Bard v. Brown Cty., 970 F.3d 738 (6th Cir. 2020) support the waiver/abandonment holdings when arguments are perfunctory or underdeveloped on appeal.

Legal Reasoning

The panel’s reasoning tracks the classic ADA analysis with an emphasis on evidentiary sufficiency:

  • No direct evidence: Moore’s claim that the employer “admitted” his failure to complete some duties conflicted with the documentary record of multiple performance-based incidents predating any light-duty note. Because the factfinder would still need to infer discriminatory motive, the evidence was not “direct.”
  • McDonnell Douglas framework applies: The court proceeded to the five-element prima facie test. It credited that Moore was qualified and suffered an adverse action, but focused on three missing elements:
    • Disability: Moore provided no medical records corroborating his claimed scoliosis or chronic back condition and no evidence that any condition substantially limited major life activities such as lifting, bending, walking, standing, or working. His deposition references and a coworker’s conclusory affidavit lacked specifics and did not substitute for medical evidence. The short, six-day light-duty authorization did not itself establish a substantially limiting impairment.
    • Employer knowledge: Decisionmakers must know specifics of restrictions or disability. The job application sections querying standing ability and health issues were left blank. Apart from the six-day chiropractor note (which the employer accommodated), Moore offered no record of a proper diagnosis, no documented communication to management of a qualifying impairment, and only vague assertions of prior knowledge by a manager. Under Hrdlicka, general awareness without specifics is insufficient.
    • Comparator/replacement: The court required evidence that the position remained open, that Moore was replaced, or that a similarly situated nondisabled person was treated more favorably. Citing Griffin and Hoffman, it held that failure on this element alone defeats the prima facie case.
  • Failure to accommodate: Because no qualifying disability was established and no proper diagnosis communicated to the employer, the accommodation claim could not proceed. The ADA does not require accommodation absent employer knowledge of a disability and a specific request triggering the interactive process; Moore’s evidence did not clear this threshold.
  • Retaliation: The court corrected the district court’s legal error: a request for an accommodation is protected activity in the Sixth Circuit. Still, Moore’s claim failed because:
    • He did not develop a causation argument connecting his light-duty request to his termination; temporal proximity was undermined by documented performance problems that predated the request.
    • He did not engage with the employer’s articulated non-discriminatory reasons (insubordination, absenteeism, guest complaint) or show pretext—arguments deemed waived due to perfunctory briefing.

Impact and Practical Implications

Though not precedential, the opinion consolidates several important principles likely to influence district court practice in the Sixth Circuit:

  • Protected activity clarified: Even short-term light-duty requests constitute protected activity under the ADA’s anti-retaliation provision. Litigants should ensure district courts apply this settled rule.
  • Medical documentation matters: Plaintiffs must present competent evidence—often medical records or provider opinions—that a condition exists and that it substantially limits major life activities. Bare assertions and nonspecific coworker affidavits will not survive summary judgment.
  • Employer knowledge requires specifics: To trigger ADA duties (including accommodation), the employer must be on notice of the disability’s nature and limitations. Vague statements or generalized references to “back issues” are inadequate; written diagnosis and clear restrictions communicated to decisionmakers are critical.
  • Comparator/replacement requirement remains in play: The panel’s reliance on the fifth McDonnell Douglas element—position remained open, replacement, or comparator—confirms that plaintiffs must be prepared to identify a nondisabled comparator or replacement evidence in discharge cases.
  • Performance documentation can defeat causation: Employers that contemporaneously document performance deficiencies and apply progressive discipline are better positioned to show non-discriminatory reasons for termination, severing causal inferences from protected activity.
  • Appellate waiver is real: Perfuctory appellate briefing on causation or pretext risks forfeiture. ADA plaintiffs should fully develop these arguments at both summary judgment and on appeal.
  • Ohio law alignment: For now, ADA analyses generally control Ohio Rev. Code § 4112 disability claims in the Sixth Circuit. Practitioners should brief them together unless a distinct state-law divergence is at issue.

A note of caution for employers: pre-offer inquiries about health conditions can raise separate ADA concerns not at issue in this case. Employers should ensure application forms and hiring practices comply with restrictions on disability-related inquiries and medical examinations.

Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Direct vs. circumstantial evidence: Direct evidence proves discrimination without inferences (e.g., “We’re firing you because of your disability”). Circumstantial evidence requires inferences (e.g., timing, comparators) and triggers the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting test.
  • McDonnell Douglas framework:
    1. Plaintiff makes a “prima facie” case (meets basic elements).
    2. Employer articulates a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the action.
    3. Plaintiff proves pretext—that the employer’s reason was not the true reason.
  • “Disability” under the ADA: A physical or mental impairment that substantially limits major life activities (e.g., walking, lifting, bending, working), a record of such impairment, or being “regarded as” having such an impairment.
  • “Regarded as” and the “transitory and minor” defense: An employer treats someone as impaired even if the impairment does not substantially limit major life activities. But short-term, minor impairments are excluded (this is an employer affirmative defense).
  • Employer knowledge: The decisionmaker must know about the disability and its work-related limitations—not just that the employee sometimes complains of pain.
  • Comparator/replacement evidence: In discharge cases, plaintiffs often must show they were replaced or the job remained open, or identify similarly situated nondisabled employees who were treated better for similar conduct.
  • Protected activity (retaliation): Requesting an accommodation is protected. To win retaliation claims, plaintiffs must show the employer knew of the protected activity, took adverse action, and that the action was caused by the protected activity. If the employer offers a legitimate reason, the plaintiff must show pretext.
  • Waiver on appeal: Courts deem issues abandoned if raised perfunctorily without developed argument or record citations.

Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit’s decision in Moore v. Next Generation Hospitality underscores four key points for ADA litigation in the circuit: (1) a request for light-duty is protected activity; (2) plaintiffs must produce competent, specific evidence of a qualifying disability and employer knowledge; (3) comparator or replacement evidence remains an essential part of the prima facie case in discharge actions; and (4) retaliation claims require developed proof of causation and pretext, not just a protected act.

On the facts presented, Moore’s claims faltered at the threshold: absent medical proof of a disability, specifics communicated to decisionmakers, and comparator/replacement evidence, summary judgment was appropriate on discrimination and failure-to-accommodate claims. And despite correcting the district court on the “protected activity” question, the panel affirmed dismissal of the retaliation count for lack of causation and waiver. For plaintiffs, the opinion is a blueprint of evidentiary pitfalls to avoid; for employers, it validates careful documentation of performance concerns and responsive, time-limited accommodations where presented with short-term restrictions.

Case Details

Year: 2025
Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Comments