Armstrong V. City Of East Cleveland

Case Background

On June 06, 2023, Nathaniel Armstrong, a firefighter, filed an employment discrimination lawsuit alleging a violation of his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The case was filed before the United States District Court, Ohio Northern (Cleveland). Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr presided over this case. [Case number: 1:23cv1216]

Cause

Plaintiff Nathaniel Armstrong lived in the Village of Glenwillow, Cuyahoga County, Ohio. Armstrong suffered from an adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood. As a result of this condition, he qualified as disabled. Throughout his employment, he qualified as an “employee” under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

In December 1991, he began working for East Cleveland as a First Grade Firefighter. Starting in 2011, he took on the Acting Lieutenant role for six months each year. By 2016, he also became Superintendent of Buildings.

He faced a family emergency that required leave under the Family Medical Leave Act. On August 2, 2019, Dr. Edwin R. Shirley diagnosed him with adjustment disorder, characterized by anxiety and depression. Dr. Shirley advised him to stay off work until his symptoms improved. Consequently, Armstrong informed East Cleveland of his diagnosis and requested additional leave, providing medical documentation from Dr. Shirley.

East Cleveland approved the additional leave, considering it a reasonable accommodation under the ADA. He attended regular appointments with Dr. Shirley for the next 14 months. In late September 2020, Armstrong expressed his intent to return to work and confirmed he could perform his job’s essential functions. However, East Cleveland required him to undergo a fitness-for-duty test.

On September 10, 2020, Armstrong completed the evaluation by Dr. Michael W. Faust. Although Dr. Faust’s evaluation did not recommend him for duty, he did not share this immediately. Armstrong followed up multiple times, eager to return. East Cleveland suggested he retire or seek disability.

On January 4, 2021, Armstrong received a termination letter dated December 21, 2020, citing unfitness for duty. This termination was an adverse employment action based on his disability. East Cleveland claimed to have offered a reasonable accommodation by proposing a Building Inspector position, but this offer was never made. They also did not engage in discussions about accommodations with Armstrong.

Damages

Defendant violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101, et seq., when they discharged Armstrong due to his disability. As a result of this discrimination, Armstrong experienced significant mental anguish and emotional distress. This distress included depression, humiliation, embarrassment, stress, anxiety, and a loss of self-esteem and confidence. He endured considerable emotional pain and suffering.

In their discriminatory actions, East Cleveland acted with malice or reckless indifference toward Armstrong’s rights. This behavior entitled Armstrong to seek punitive damages.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal Representation

  • Plaintiff(s): Nathaniel Armstrong
    • Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Matthew T. Hurm
  • Defendant(s): City of East Cleveland
    • Counsel for Defendant(s): Heather C. McCollough | Willa Hemmons

Claims

Count I: Disability Discrimination Under the ADA
Defendant violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., by discharging Armstrong due to his disability.

Count II: Disability Discrimination Under Ohio Revised Code § 4112
Defendant also breached Ohio Revised Code § 4112.02(A) when they terminated Armstrong based on his disability.

Count III: Failure to Accommodate Under the ADA
Despite Armstrong’s recovery, East Cleveland deemed him unfit to return as a firefighter. They failed to engage in an interactive process that would have facilitated his return to work. This omission constituted a clear violation of the ADA.

Count IV: Failure to Accommodate Under Ohio Revised Code § 4112
Once again, East Cleveland neglected to engage in an interactive process with Armstrong, preventing his return to work. By failing to do so, they violated R.C. § 4112.02(A), which prohibits discrimination based on disability and perceived disabilities.

Defense

In their response, the Defendant denied that the Plaintiff sustained any damages. They also disputed the nature and extent of any damage that might exist. Furthermore, they claimed that their actions did not cause any damages to the Plaintiff.

Jury Verdict

On September 13, 2024, the Ohio jury found that the Defendant City of East Cleveland had not violated the ADA by terminating the Plaintiff on the basis of his disability. However, the jury found that Defendant had violated the ADA by failing to provide Plaintiff with reasonable accommodation. The jury awarded Plaintiff $85,362 in damages which included the following:

  • Economic loss: $76,166
    • Wages and benefits: $73,166
    • Medical expenses: $3,000
  • Non-economic loss: $9,196
    • Emotional pain and mental anguish: $9,196

On the same day, Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr entered a judgment consistent with the verdict.

Post-trial Motions

On September 19, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or alternatively, a motion for a new trial. In its motion, the Defendant argued that the jury verdict was internally inconsistent. They stated it was irreconcilable with the finding that the City did not violate the Americans with Disabilities Act by terminating the Plaintiff due to his disability. Additionally, the Defendant claimed the verdict was contrary to the law. As an alternative, they urged the Court to grant a new trial.

Court Documents:

Available upon request