Andrea Tumbleson, an art teacher with the Lakota Local School District in Ohio, spent decades teaching despite living with Usher syndrome, a rare genetic condition that has progressively caused her to lose both her hearing and vision. By the time of the events at issue, Tumbleson was completely deaf and relied on cochlear implants to hear, while her vision continued to deteriorate. Despite these challenges, she remained a highly regarded teacher who consistently received positive evaluations and had never been disciplined.
Over the years, the District provided various accommodations, including additional classroom lighting, specialized computer equipment, and accessibility software. As her vision worsened, however, Tumbleson decided that she needed a guide dog to help her navigate daily life safely.
Obtaining the guide dog required Tumbleson to attend a mandatory three-week training program in Michigan during the school year. She requested permission to use approximately thirteen (13) days of accrued paid sick leave to attend the training, explaining that the program was medically related and necessary because of her disability.
The District denied the request for paid sick leave, concluding that the training did not qualify as a “personal illness, injury, or exposure to contagious disease” under Ohio law, the collective bargaining agreement, or the District’s sick-leave policy. At the same time, the District approved unpaid leave as a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), allowing Tumbleson to attend the training and obtain her guide dog.
After successfully completing the program and receiving her guide dog, Henry, Tumbleson sued. She alleged that the District violated the ADA by discriminating against her based on her disability and by failing to provide a reasonable accommodation. She also asserted that the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) entitled her to use accrued paid sick leave during the training period.
The Sixth Circuit rejected all of her claims.
With respect to her ADA discrimination claim, the Court explained that disparate treatment claims require evidence that similarly situated non-disabled employees were treated more favorably. Although Tumbleson argued that other employees routinely received sick leave without scrutiny, she could not identify any non-disabled employee who was permitted to use paid sick leave for an absence that did not otherwise qualify under the District’s policy. Without evidence of a comparator, the claim failed.
The Court also rejected her failure-to-accommodate claim. The ADA requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to an otherwise qualified individual with a disability, unless doing so would unduly burden the employer. The Court noted, however, that the ADA does not require employers to provide an employee’s preferred accommodation if another reasonable option is available and permits the employee to perform their job. Here, the District allowed Tumbleson to take unpaid leave so that she could attend the training and obtain her guide dog. Because that accommodation enabled her to achieve the same objective, the Court held that the District satisfied its obligations under the ADA.
The Court emphasized that the ADA does not require an employer to address every financial consequence associated with an accommodation. While Tumbleson argued that unpaid leave created financial hardship for her family, the Court concluded that those concerns arose outside the workplace and therefore did not determine whether the accommodation was reasonable under the ADA.
The Court likewise rejected Tumbleson’s FMLA claim. Although it declined to definitively decide whether the guide dog training qualified for FMLA leave, it held that the FMLA is presumptively treated as unpaid leave. FMLA only entitles employees to substitute paid leave when the employer would normally provide paid leave under its existing policies. The District had concluded that attending guide dog training did not constitute a “personal illness” under its sick-leave policy, and Tumbleson failed to meaningfully challenge that interpretation on appeal.
Accordingly, the Court affirmed summary judgment in favor of the District.
Tumbleson v. Lakota Loc. Sch. Dist. (6th Cir. May 13, 2026) __ F.4th __ [2026 WL 1328618].
Note: This case provides useful guidance on providing reasonable accommodations to employees, especially when the accommodation is not an employee’s preferred accommodation. Under the ADA, where multiple accommodations would effectively address an employee’s functional limitations, employers generally retain discretion to choose among reasonable options. This case also highlights the importance of consistency in the application of leave policies, especially sick leave where permissible purposes for sick leave are dictated by both legal requirements and policy language. Had the District not consistently permitted the use of sick leave only for permissible purposes, the result of this case could have been different.