Fisher v. Nissan N.A., Inc., No. 18-5847 (6th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Fisher began working on Nissan’s factory floor in 2003. At his 10-year evaluation, he met requirements in 16 categories and exceeded requirements in the remaining six; he had few disciplinary incidents. In 2015, Fisher went on extended leave for severe kidney disease and, ultimately, a kidney transplant. When he returned to work, he was still recovering from the transplant, and his attendance suffered. Fisher proposed several different accommodations, some of which were not provided. When he received a final written warning about his attendance, he left work and did not return. Fisher filed suit, claiming that Nissan failed to accommodate his disability and to engage in the interactive process, as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12101. The district court granted Nissan summary judgment.
The Sixth Circuit reversed in part. Factual disputes as to Nissan’s policies regarding assignment to easier positions remain. A factfinder could conclude that Fisher was qualified for a vacant inspection position he identified and that he requested and was denied assistance in identifying other available positions and could conclude that Nissan bears the responsibility for its failure to respond to Fisher’s renewed requests for accommodation. The court affirmed the rejection of a state law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.