Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals Affirms Employee’s $800,000 Jury Verdict for Failure To Accommodate and Retaliation Against Genesee County Road Commission

On July 16, 2025, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment after a jury verdict in favor of Donna Poplar, an employee of the Genesee County Road Commission. Poplar had sued her employer for failing to accommodate her vision disability and retaliating against her because of her discrimination complaints. Sommers Schwartz attorneys Tad Roumayah, Ramona Howard, and Nathan Robbins, together with attorney Charis (Lee) Williams, represented the plaintiff in this employment discrimination lawsuit brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Failure To Accommodate and Retaliation for Requesting Accommodations

Donna Poplar is blind in her right eye and suffers from chronic open-angle glaucoma in her left eye. She disclosed her vision disability during her interview with the Genesee County Road Commission and was hired as its human resources director in October 2016.

Within three months of starting work, Ms. Poplar requested several disability accommodations, including a closer parking spot, a larger computer screen, and dimmer office lights, all of which the Commission provided. Around November 2016, Ms. Poplar verbally requested an assistant as an accommodation to help with reading and computer work. The board approved a part-time HR assistant in its January 2017 budget but never filled the position.

In May 2018, Ms. Poplar submitted a written request for a part-time assistant to help with reading and computer tasks after her doctor advised that these were causing her severe eye pain. She reiterated this request in August via email to Fred Peivandi, the new managing director. Although the board subsequently approved hiring a full-time HR assistant, it did not fill the position.

In February 2019, Ms. Poplar filed an EEOC charge against the Commission and Mr. Peivandi for disability and race discrimination. The following month, Monica Pearson was hired as the HR assistant, initially part-time, becoming full-time in October 2019. Ms. Pearson’s duties included assisting Ms. Poplar with reading, computer work, and email correspondence, in addition to doing research, building PowerPoint presentations, and other clerical work.

In January 2021, Ms. Poplar filed an internal complaint with the Commission’s Board, alleging that Mr. Peivandi subjected her to a hostile work environment based on her race. In May 2021, she filed another EEOC complaint against the Commission, alleging race discrimination. In August 2021, she received a written Disciplinary Action Notice and a two-week, unpaid suspension.

During her suspension, Ms. Poplar filed another internal complaint against Mr. Peivandi, alleging race discrimination, harassment, and a hostile work environment. The Commission placed Poplar on paid administrative leave for several months while investigating her complaints.

In October 2021, Ms. Poplar returned from administrative leave. She learned that Ms. Pearson had been promoted to a benefits coordinator position, leaving the HR assistant position vacant. Ms. Poplar emailed Operations Director Randy Dellaposta requesting that the position be filled so that she could obtain an accommodation for her visual disability. However, the position was not filled, reportedly because Mr. Peivandi “did not want to.” Ms. Poplar again complained to the board about not being accommodated for her blindness. The assistant HR position has never been filled. Ms. Poplar continues to work as the HR Director without an assistant.

Litigation and Appeal

Ms. Poplar brought an employment discrimination action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. She alleged retaliation and failure to accommodate her disability, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (a federal statute that guarantees a person’s equal right to make and enforce contracts without discrimination), Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, and Michigan’s Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act.

After an eight-day trial, a jury found that the Commission unlawfully retaliated against Ms. Poplar and failed to accommodate her disability. It awarded her $800,000. The Commission argued on appeal that the lower court allowed procedural errors, unfairly prejudicial testimony, and an unreasonably excessive verdict. The Appellate Court disagreed and upheld the jury’s verdict for Ms. Poplar.