FOLLOW US

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to review a lawsuit filed by William Kelly, a former worker at Graphic Packaging International Inc., who claimed he was unlawfully forced onto unpaid leave after requesting an exemption from climbing ladders due to a severe injury. The justices’ refusal leaves intact the Sixth Circuit’s February decision siding with the packaging giant.

As is standard practice, the nation’s highest court issued no explanation for its denial of Kelly’s petition for certiorari, effectively ending his bid to revive claims that the company violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and retaliated against him for asserting his rights.

The Roots of the Dispute

Kelly began working for Graphic Packaging in 2014 as a production employee. Over the years, he endured several injuries that led to multiple medical leaves. His troubles began in February 2017, when a car accident left him with a serious hand injury, forcing him to take six months off. Although he attempted to return later that year, the pain proved unbearable, resulting in an extended two-year absence.

By August 2019, Kelly tried once again to rejoin the workforce, this time with doctor-imposed restrictions prohibiting him from climbing ladders. However, his position required frequent ascents up four-story paper machines — a task integral to the job. As a result, Graphic Packaging placed him on unpaid leave, arguing that he could not fulfill the essential physical requirements of his role.

Kelly countered that this decision amounted to disability discrimination, claiming he was wrongfully denied opportunities for overtime and promotions and effectively punished for his medical condition.

The Legal Battle: Retaliation, Rights, and Summary Judgment

Kelly’s lawsuit, filed in 2021, accused the company of interfering with his ADA rights and retaliating against him for seeking accommodations. He asserted that both the district court and the Sixth Circuit erred by dismissing his claims before a jury could weigh in, arguing that the courts relied too heavily on the company’s version of events.

In his July petition, Kelly urged the Supreme Court to recognize that ADA retaliation claims seeking monetary damages deserve jury trials, not bench trials. He argued that inconsistencies among federal circuits on this issue warranted the justices’ intervention. Moreover, he contended that courts have become too lenient in granting summary judgment, thereby “snuffing out” valid discrimination suits before they reach trial.

Company’s Defense and Court’s Final Word

In an August response, Graphic Packaging urged the high court to deny review, saying Kelly had raised his jury trial argument for the first time at the Supreme Court level. The company’s legal team, led by Stephanie R. Setterington of Varnum LLP, insisted that the Sixth Circuit never had the opportunity to evaluate those claims — and therefore, the justices should not either.

The Sixth Circuit’s ruling had upheld both a summary judgment in favor of the company on the ADA interference claim and a bench trial victory on the retaliation claim. The appellate panel concluded that Kelly provided insufficient evidence proving that discrimination — rather than job-related limitations — motivated the company’s decision. It also found no proof that the company hindered Kelly from exercising his rights under the ADA.

Aftermath and Representation

Neither Kelly nor Graphic Packaging International immediately responded to requests for comment on the Supreme Court’s refusal.

Kelly was represented by Gwen-Marie Davis of GDH Law Firm, while Graphic Packaging International was represented by Stephanie R. Setterington of Varnum LLP.

With the denial, the Graphic Packaging ADA Case suit comes to a close — another chapter in the ongoing national debate over how far workplace accommodation laws extend and whether disabled employees truly receive their day in court.