Fett Law filed a lawsuit on behalf of Andrew Thurston against Ingham County in the Circuit Court for Ingham County, Michigan. Thurston, who has a disability (retinitis pigmentosa), alleges violations of the Michigan Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act (PDCRA) by his former employer, Ingham County.

Factual Allegations:

Andrew Thurston, a person with the disability retinitis pigmentosa, filed a legal action under the Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act (PDCRA) against Ingham County, an agency of the State of Michigan. Thurston began working as a 911 Communications Technician for the Lansing Police Department in 2007, and in 2012, Ingham County became his employer. As a legally blind individual, Thurston requires accommodations to perform his duties. He initially requested accommodations in 2012 and filed an EEOC complaint in 2013. In 2015, Ingham County introduced new computer aided dispatch (CAD) software, which posed challenges for Thurston due to his visual impairments. He requested several accommodations, such as adjusting “hot keys,” setting up flash notifications, providing touch screen monitors, and improving screen contrast. However, these accommodations were not implemented, and when issues arose during a busy day in May 2015, Thurston made mistakes due to the lack of necessary support. Despite expressing his ability to continue working if accommodations were provided, the County placed him on unpaid leave while investigating the issue. Ultimately, Thurston was terminated in August 2015 for his inability to use the new software without accommodations. He claims the County violated the PDCRA by failing to provide reasonable accommodations and by terminating him due to his disability.

Legal Claims:

1. Violation of PDCRA (Determinable Physical Characteristic): Thurston claims his termination was due to his disability, which violates the PDCRA.
2. Violation of PDCRA (Failure to Participate in the Interactive Process): Thurston argues the County did not properly engage in the required interactive process for accommodations, failed to provide necessary notices, and did not make a genuine effort to accommodate him.

Fett Law sought economic and non-economic damages, costs, interest, attorney fees, and equitable relief from the court.

Outcome:

The parties reached a confidential settlement, the terms of which cannot be disclosed. 

Learn more about Fett Law by visiting our disability discrimination lawyers page.