Skip to main content

Wayne Henschel v. Clare County Road Commission

6th CircuitDecember 13, 2013No. 18-3929Cited 16 times
Mixed ResultClare County Road Commission
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Citation
737 F.3d 1017, 28 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1617, 2013 WL 6509198, 197 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2789, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 24746, 15 Accom. Disabilities Dec. (CCH) 15
Judge(s)
Cook, Stranch, Carr
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

DiscriminationFailure to Accommodate

Outcome

The Sixth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's grant of summary judgment for the employer. The court found genuine issues of material fact exist regarding whether transporting the excavator was an essential function of the excavator operator position, precluding summary judgment, though it upheld the district court on other grounds.

What This Ruling Means

Wayne Henschel v. Clare County Road Commission: What Workers Need to Know

Wayne Henschel worked as an excavator operator for the Clare County Road Commission but had a medical condition that prevented him from driving commercial vehicles to transport equipment between job sites. When his employer wouldn't accommodate this limitation, Henschel sued for disability discrimination and failure to provide reasonable accommodations.

The lower court initially ruled entirely in favor of the Road Commission, dismissing Henschel's case. However, the federal appeals court partially reversed this decision. The appeals court found there were genuine questions about whether transporting the excavator was truly an essential part of the job that required a trial to resolve. The court noted that if transporting equipment wasn't essential to the position, the employer might have been required to accommodate Henschel's driving restriction.

This ruling matters for workers because it reinforces that employers can't automatically claim every job duty is "essential" to avoid providing accommodations. When workers have disabilities that limit certain functions, courts will examine whether those functions are truly necessary for the job. Workers facing similar situations should document which job duties they can and cannot perform, as this distinction can be crucial in disability accommodation cases.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 3 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.