## Facts

- Arkay, Inc. was a federally funded entity that supplied free job coaches to employers that hired disabled individuals.
- Arkay’s job coaches provided assistance to disabled employees in performing their work.
- Arkay contracted with Hertz Corporation.
- Under the contract, Hertz hired two mentally disabled individuals, Donald Klem and Kenneth Miller.
- In exchange, Arkay supplied two job coaches to Hertz.
- Klem and Miller were responsible for picking up trash in the Hertz parking lot.
- The job coaches provided full-time assistance to Klem and Miller, including help in performing their job duties.
- There was evidence that Klem and Miller would need this kind of assistance on a permanent basis.
- After the job coaches were found kissing each other, Hertz terminated its contract with Arkay.
- Hertz also fired Klem and Miller.
- Arkay submitted a complaint to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
- The EEOC sued Hertz, alleging a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
- Hertz moved for summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether, on the summary-judgment record, Hertz was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the EEOC’s ADA claim arising from Hertz’s termination of Klem and Miller.
2. Whether employees who require full-time (and possibly permanent) job-coach assistance can be “qualified individuals with a disability” for purposes of ADA employment protections in this setting.
3. Whether the evidence permitted an inference that Hertz terminated Klem and Miller because of disability-related limitations (including the need for job-coach support), as opposed to terminating them solely as a consequence of ending the Arkay contract after the coaches’ workplace conduct.

## Decision

- The case came before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on Hertz’s motion for summary judgment.
- The district court took Hertz’s motion for summary judgment under advisement.

## Legal Principles

- The dispute centers on ADA employment rules governing discriminatory discharge and the treatment of accommodation-related needs (including job-coach assistance) when assessing whether an employee is “qualified.”
- A summary-judgment motion tests whether the record shows any genuine dispute of material fact and whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
- Where an employer identifies a nondiscriminatory reason for a discharge, the ADA claim commonly turns on whether the record supports disability-related causation (including whether the asserted reason is the actual reason for the action).

## Conclusion

EEOC v. Hertz involves an ADA enforcement action challenging Hertz’s termination of two mentally disabled employees who performed parking-lot trash duties with full-time job-coach assistance supplied by Arkay; after an incident involving the coaches, Hertz ended the Arkay contract and fired the employees, prompting the EEOC’s suit and Hertz’s summary-judgment motion, which the district court took under advisement.


Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Hertz Corp., 1998 WL 5694 (1998)