Alvarado v. Potter, 813 F. Supp. 2d 247

Background

Alvarado began working for the USPS in 1991 and became a full-time rural carrier in 2000, with 48-hour weeks by 2002 and overtime during Christmas seasons through 2008.
He resigned from the Postal Service on April 29, 2008 after exhausting leave, while disability benefits were later awarded retroactively to February 2008 and Social Security benefits began in August 2008.
Alvarado has a long-standing schizoaffective disorder treated with medication; he contends medication caused late deliveries but alleges his condition affected his work.
In 2007–2008, he experienced alleged discriminatory and retaliatory acts by supervisors and coworkers, including comments about his medication and a pattern of increased scrutiny.
Concrete disciplinary actions include a 14-day no-time-off suspension for January 2008 conduct (later reduced to a warning) and a hostile-work-environment/retaliation theory tied to events from 2007–2008.
Plaintiff sought accommodations under the Rehabilitation Act/ADA; the court ultimately held he was not substantially limited in a major life activity and granted summary judgment for the defense.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Alvarado is disabled under the Rehabilitation Act/ADA	Alvarado contends his mental impairment substantially limits major life activities.	Alvarado's impairment is controlled with treatment and does not substantially limit major activities.	Not disabled; no substantial limitation found.
Whether Alvarado was a qualified individual and entitled to a reasonable accommodation	Alvarado required accommodations for his disability to perform essential duties.	Even with medication, Alvarado could perform essential duties; no accommodation proven necessary.	Not reached; dispositive result: no disability shown.
Whether Alvarado's conduct constitutes a hostile-work-environment or retaliation claim	Post-complaint harassment and scrutiny amount to retaliation and a hostile environment.	Alvarado's experiences were petty and not objectively hostile; harassment did not force a resignation.	GRANTED summary judgment for retaliation/hostile-environment claim.
Whether the psychiatric reports submitted by Alvarado were admissible at summary judgment	Reports support disability contentions and should be admissible evidence.	Reports were hearsay and not authenticated under Rule 56(e).	Inadmissible for summary judgment; reports not properly authenticated.
Overall disposition on summary judgment	Disputes over disability and retaliation create triable issues.	Disputed facts do not create a genuine issue on disability or retaliation.	GRANTED; case dismissed with prejudice.

Key Cases Cited

Calero-Cerezo v. United States Department of Justice, 355 F.3d 6 (1st Cir. 2004) (ADA/Rehabilitation Act disability framework; three-part test)
Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (S. Ct. 2002) (defines disability and major life activities; case-by-case analysis)
Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (S. Ct. 1999) (mitigating measures must be considered in substantial limitation analysis)
Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (S. Ct. 2006) (retaliation standard; adverse action is “materially adverse” to a reasonable employee)
Vega v. Kodak Carib. Ltd., 3 F.3d 476 (1st Cir. 1993) (employee perceptions of discrimination insufficient for construct. discharge)
Méndez v. West, 117 F. Supp. 2d 121 (D.P.R. 2001) (prima facie disability discrimination framework)
Griggs-Ryan v. Smith, 904 F.2d 112 (1st Cir. 1990) (summary judgment standard and evidence evaluation)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (S. Ct. 1986) (material facts and genuine dispute standard for summary judgment)
Carmona v. Toledo, 215 F.3d 124 (1st Cir. 2000) (authentication requirements for summary-judgment evidence)
Castro-Medina v. Procter & Gamble Commercial Co., 565 F. Supp. 2d 343 (D.P.R. 2008) (hearsay/admissibility considerations at summary judgment)