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.
