FOLLOW US

Like a control room alarm silenced after review, a federal appeals court has shut down a lawsuit brought by a former nuclear plant employee who claimed he was fired for seeking fewer night shifts to manage diabetes. The Sixth Circuit on Monday upheld the dismissal of the Fired Worker Nuclear Plant suit, agreeing that the company had a legitimate reason for the termination.

A three-judge panel declined to revive claims from William Shears, a former maintenance supervisor, who alleged that Energy Harbor Nuclear Corp. violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title VII. The court said Shears failed to undercut the company’s explanation that he was fired for falsifying time sheets, not for his medical condition.

“All in all, the record reflects that Energy Harbor made a reasonably informed and considered decision before terminating Shears,” the panel wrote.

Diabetes Accommodation at the Center of the Dispute

Shears said in his 2020 lawsuit against Energy Harbor and its former parent, FirstEnergy Corp., that the plant began assigning him night shifts in March 2019, despite earlier assurances that such work would be limited to accommodate his diabetes. If poorly controlled, he said, the condition can impair vision, cognition and stamina.

The former employee claimed his supervisor repeatedly brushed aside warnings that night work worsened his condition. He also said he had previously assisted coworkers in filing human resources complaints against that supervisor, suggesting this history fueled indifference toward his own concerns.

According to the panel, Energy Harbor temporarily removed Shears from night shifts after he submitted a doctor’s note recommending the change.

Audit, Time Sheets and Termination

Soon after granting the accommodation, the company audited Shears’ time records. The review found he had consistently overstated hours worked compared with data from his access badge, the judges said. Energy Harbor fired him in May 2019.

On appeal, Shears argued the company violated the law by waiting for medical documentation before acting and by failing to recognize that diabetes-related cognitive issues caused his timekeeping mistakes. He also claimed the termination itself amounted to a failure to accommodate.

The panel rejected both arguments. Judges said Shears undercut his own position by acknowledging during oral argument that employers may reasonably seek medical documentation before granting accommodations. They also said failure-to-accommodate claims require proof that a reasonable accommodation was denied — not that an employee was fired for conduct allegedly linked to a disability.