Wurzel v. Whirlpool Corp.
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
482 Fed. App’x 1 (2012)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
Brian Wurzel (plaintiff) worked for Whirlpool Corporation (defendant) as a material handler driving a forklift. In 2007, Wurzel was diagnosed with Prinzmetal angina, a lifelong condition causing coronary artery spasms, prompting Wurzel to suffer chest tightness, shortness of breath, neck pain, numbness, fatigue, and dizziness. The spasms were not predictable, but Wurzel took nitroglycerin pills to alleviate symptoms once a spasm started. Between November 2007 and March 2009, Wurzel suffered numerous spasms. At least 11 occurred at work, five requiring visits to the factory’s emergency department. Once, a coworker found Wurzel doubled over, close to passing out. Wurzel had multiple appointments with Dr. Robert Marshall, Whirlpool’s plant doctor, and Dr. Mark Issa and Dr. Frederick Stockton, Wurzel’s cardiologists. Marshall initially approved Wurzel to remain in his role. However, as the spasms’ frequency increased, Marshall became concerned. Wurzel’s cardiologists declared him fit to work, but Wurzel never fully disclosed his responsibilities or symptoms. Marshall, being aware of both, deemed Wurzel unfit but approved his transfer to a paint-department role. However, when Wurzel had additional spasms, Marshall grew concerned about his safety because the new role involved working around moving machines, sometimes alone on an upper floor. Marshall asked cardiologist Dr. Haridas Biswas to conduct an independent medical examination. Biswas initially approved Wurzel for work, but again Wurzel had not been forthcoming about his responsibilities and symptoms. When Marshall provided that information, Biswas explained that Wurzel should avoid working near moving machinery and should never do so alone. Whirlpool placed Wurzel on unpaid sick leave until he was spasm-free for six months. Wurzel sued Whirlpool, alleging disability discrimination violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The district court granted summary judgment in Whirlpool’s favor, concluding in part that Wurzel posed a direct threat to himself or others. Wurzel appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Goldsmith, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 916,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,300 briefs, keyed to 1,000 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.


