Audette v. Town of Plymouth, 858 F.3d 13

Michelle Audette, a long‑time Plymouth patrol officer, suffered two on‑the‑job right‑ankle injuries that left her limited to light‑duty work (station officer) and intermittent IOD leave; physicians agreed she could not perform full patrol duties.
Audette requested a transfer on October 9, 2013 to perform seated NIBRS data‑entry (a nontraditional light‑duty assignment) after a temporary officer (Dexter) who had done that work was reassigned on October 6, 2013.
The Department told Audette the temporary NIBRS assignment had ended and the only available light‑duty spot for patrol officers was the station officer role, which Audette accepted and performed within medical limits.
Earlier, Audette faced discipline (a reprimand) arising from an off‑duty incident; she pursued arbitration and the union and Town entered a settlement removing the reprimand and waiving claims arising from it.
Audette sued alleging failure to accommodate under the ADA and Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B, ADA retaliation, and gender discrimination under Massachusetts law; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants, and Audette appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
ADA / Failure to accommodate — transfer/reassignment	Audette argued she was entitled to transfer to the NIBRS data‑entry position she could perform within limitations	Town argued no actual vacant NIBRS data‑entry position existed when Audette requested it; employer not required to create jobs	Held for defendants: Audette failed to show a vacant position she could perform, so accommodation claim fails
ADA retaliation	Audette's complaint referenced "retaliatory and unfair treatment"	Defendants said no independent ADA retaliation claim was properly pled or argued	Held for defendants: any ADA retaliation claim was not pursued at summary judgment and thus waived
Massachusetts gender discrimination (ch. 151B)	Audette claimed the reprimand and threats constituted adverse employment actions linked to gender	Defendants pointed to the arbitration settlement removing the reprimand and waiver; no tangible employment consequences shown	Held for defendants: reprimand removed under settlement (waiver) and no admissible evidence of other adverse action; prima facie case not established
Use of reprimand as adverse action after settlement	Audette suggested the reprimand was reputationally harmful despite settlement	Defendants relied on settlement terms (removal and waiver) and absence of objective consequences	Held for defendants: settlement waiver precludes relying on the reprimand as an adverse employment action

Lang v. Wal‑Mart Stores East, L.P., 813 F.3d 447 (1st Cir.) (ADA accommodation framework)
Phelps v. Optima Health, Inc., 251 F.3d 21 (1st Cir.) (employer not required to create job)
U.S. Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391 (Supreme Court) (reassignment as accommodation context)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (Supreme Court) (burden‑shifting framework for discrimination claims)
Bhatti v. Trustees of Boston Univ., 659 F.3d 64 (1st Cir.) (adverse employment action inquiry)
Cravens v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Kan. City, 214 F.3d 1011 (8th Cir.) (reassignment cases addressing ADA transfer duties)
Reed v. LePage Bakeries, Inc., 244 F.3d 254 (1st Cir.) (initial burden in reasonable accommodation analysis)