Bostick v. Smith & Wesson Corp.
3:15-cv-30193
| D. Mass. | Apr 25, 2017Background
- Bostick worked third-shift assembly at Smith & Wesson; on March 17, 2014 he left work abruptly, handed in his badge, and was taken to Mercy Medical Center for treatment.
- S&W initially treated his departure as a resignation but, after Bostick’s father and HR intervened, placed him on short-term disability leave conditioned on submission of medical documentation to UNUM (the insurer/TPA).
- UNUM approved benefits only through April 15, 2014 and repeatedly requested an Attending Physician’s Statement and release forms; Bostick provided limited records but did not supply the documentation needed to extend benefits beyond April 15.
- S&W warned Bostick that failure to provide the documentation by May 28, 2014 would be treated as voluntary resignation; after he failed to submit the necessary records, S&W deemed him to have resigned as of May 28, 2014.
- Bostick filed administrative charges (MCAD/EEOC); MCAD dismissed for lack of probable cause; EEOC issued a right-to-sue notice on April 3, 2015; Bostick sued in state court in late September/early October 2015.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FMLA reinstatement entitlement | Bostick contends S&W interfered with his right to be restored after FMLA leave | S&W argues Bostick was unable to return within 12 weeks, so no right to reinstatement | Court: No FMLA violation — employee must be able to return at end of 12 weeks; Bostick could not until August 2014, so no reinstatement right |
| ADA (Title I) timeliness / jurisdiction | Bostick pursued ADA claim via EEOC filing and subsequent suit | S&W contends failure to file suit within 90 days of EEOC right-to-sue notice bars the federal ADA claim | Court: ADA claim time-barred — suit filed beyond 90-day jurisdictional window; dismiss for lack of jurisdiction |
| Chapter 151B (failure to accommodate) | Bostick alleges S&W failed to accommodate extended leave and terminated him | S&W argues Bostick was not a "qualified" person at termination, failed to engage in the interactive process, and sought an indefinite leave (not reasonable) | Court: Summary judgment for S&W — (1) Bostick was not qualified at termination; (2) he failed to cooperate/document, causing breakdown; (3) open-ended leave is not a reasonable accommodation |
| Supplemental jurisdiction over state claim | Bostick’s state claim could proceed if federal claims survived | S&W urges dismissal given federal claims resolved | Court: Exercised discretion to resolve state claim on merits at summary-judgment stage given timing and statute of limitations; recommended dismissal on merits in favor of S&W |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary-judgment standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (genuine-factual-dispute standard at summary judgment)
- Hodgens v. General Dynamics Corp., 144 F.3d 151 (First Circuit on FMLA theories)
- Colburn v. Parker Hannifin/Nichols Portland Div., 429 F.3d 325 (FMLA reinstatement requires ability to return)
- Loubriel v. Fondo del Seguro del Estado, 694 F.3d 139 (presumption of receipt for administrative notices)
- García-Ayala v. Lederle Parenterals, Inc., 212 F.3d 638 (leave as reasonable accommodation; factors for open-ended leave)