Summary
The First Circuit reversed summary judgment for Wal-Mart on disability discrimination and retaliation claims under the Maine Human Rights Act and Whistleblower Protection Act. The court held that genuine disputes of material fact existed as to whether regular attendance was an essential function of the People Greeter position, whether a modified work schedule accommodating workers' compensation appointments was a facially reasonable accommodation, and whether Wal-Mart's proffered reason for termination—excessive unexcused absences—was pretextual given ambiguous attendance policies and conflicting testimony about whether absences related to medication side effects were authorized. On retaliation, the court found sufficient evidence of causation based on temporal proximity between protected activity (a harassment complaint and accommodation request in January 2017) and termination in February 2017, and because HR management who received the complaint was involved in the termination decision.
Topics
Questions Presented
- Whether Benson was a 'qualified individual with a disability' under the Maine Human Rights Act
- Whether Benson established a causal connection between her protected activity and her termination for retaliation under the MHRA and MWPA
Holdings
- The district court erred because genuine issues of material fact exist regarding whether Benson was a qualified individual with a disability and whether Wal-Mart's proffered reason for termination was pretextual.
- The district court erred because the temporal proximity between Benson's protected activity (January 20 e-mail and request for modified schedule) and her termination, along with evidence of HR Manager Gottwald's inaction, creates a genuine issue of material fact as to causation and pretext.
Key quotations
“We review the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Wal-Mart de novo.” (2)
“Based on our review of the district court record, we conclude the disputed factual evidence as adduced and the fair inferences therefrom reasonably support a case for disability discrimination under the Maine Human Rights Act and for retaliation under the Maine Whistleblower Protection Act and the Maine Human Rights Act.” (2)
“a qualified individual with a disability is defined as an individual with a physical or mental disability who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that the individual holds or desires.” (23)
“For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the district court's judgment entered on April 3, 2020, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.” (38)
Factual background
Benson worked as a People Greeter at Wal-Mart after returning from a leave of absence due to a work-related injury. She had ongoing medical appointments and side effects from medication. Wal-Mart's attendance policy allowed workers' compensation absences, but there was confusion about notification and documentation. Benson accumulated absences, and after a meeting with management, she complained of harassment. She was terminated for excessive attendance exceptions. Benson filed suit alleging disability discrimination and retaliation under Maine law.
Procedural history
Benson filed suit in state court alleging disability discrimination and retaliation under Maine law. Wal-Mart removed to federal district court. The district court granted summary judgment for Wal-Mart, holding that Benson was not a qualified individual and that she failed to show causation for retaliation. Benson appealed.
Remand instructions
for further proceedings consistent with this opinion