By Jim Cline and Sam Hagshenas
In Parnell v. Florida Department of Corrections, a Florida federal district court ruled against a corrections officer who claimed he was discriminated against for requesting mental health related disability accommodations.
Manion Parnell was a corrections officer and staff development training coordinator, responsible for training recruits at the Florida Department of Corrections. He alleged that discrimination against him began in December 2020, when he came under investigation for allegedly soliciting academy recruits to join a pyramid scheme. Although the inspector general found these allegations were not substantiated, the investigation did show that Parnell had violated several departmental policies, as he had repeatedly violated a prohibition on contacting recruits during the investigation.
Parnell was notified that he would be demoted due to his policy violations, and in October 2021 took FMLA leave for alleged mental health conditions caused by the emotional harm he was suffering at the time. After exhausting his FMLA leave in January 2022, Parnell did not return to work and was given a deadline to return to work by February 3rd, or face discipline. Parnell requested a sick leave extension under the Americans with Disabilities Act on February 1st. Around this time, Parnell’s demotion became effective.
On March 8th, Parnell again requested extended leave, with a doctor’s note verifying he had an emotional disorder but did not provide a return-to-work date. On March 23, 2022, Parnell was informed his request for leave was only extended through March 10. Parnell did not return to work or provide a return-to-work date, and his employment was eventually terminated.
Parnell brought claims under the ADA, alleging discrimination for seeking reasonable accommodation. Parnell argued that his failure to return from leave was not an issue, as he had nine hundred hours of accrued sick leave that he should have been able to use. He also noted that his Employer never reached out to his doctor to start an interactive process about when he should return to work.
The Employer noted that they had legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for firing Parnell, due to his excessive absences, and failure to follow proper ADA procedures by refusing to provide a return-to-work date.
The Court ruled in favor of the employer, finding that the Employer had valid non-discriminatory reasons for firing Parnell. The Court noted that the employer requested a return-to-work date four times, which Parnell never provided, nor did he ever actually request to use his sick leave when he was absent after exhausting his provided leave.
“While the Court does not conclude that Mr. Parnell’s absences were unjustified, it finds that Mr. Parnell has not shown that the reasons Defendant offers as to why he was demoted and terminated are untrue or of questionable credibility.”
Therefore, the Court granted summary judgement for the Employer, as Parnell failed to demonstrate that the reasons for his discipline and termination were discriminatory.
This appears to be a case of a highly troubled employee engaging in complicated and at times incomplete communications about his ability to return to work. While the employer has a duty to reasonable accommodate employees with disabilities and engaging in an “interactive dialogue” about the need for such accommodations, the employee also has a shared responsibility to participate in that dialogue. Here the employee appeared evasive at best.
The claim that he still had 900 hours of sick leave saved in his bank was not a sufficient answer to the employer’s request for medical verification and identified potential return to work date. It’s a sometimes-repeated myth that the existence of leave banks ensures that an employer cannot separate an absent employee. If the employee cannot indicate a potential return date, the employer is not obligated to hold the position open indefinitely, regardless of existing leave balances.
** Visit our Premium Website for more information on Rights of Injured and Disabled Public Safety Employees and Mental Health Issues**
