5 F. Supp. 3d 121
D. Me.2014Background
- Brown, a Bank of America collector in Maine, suffered PTSD and other effects after a 2010 sexual assault by a coworker.
- Brown sought workplace accommodations and leave; BOA allegedly refused accommodations and terminated her for absenteeism.
- BOA delegated disability/leave claims to Aetna Life Insurance, administering benefits and interacting with Brown regarding leave.
- Brown contends BOA/Aetna failed to engage in an interactive accommodation process and improperly denied/withheld information and responses.
- Brown requested her personnel file; BOA/Aetna produced partial records but omitted medical/leave documents, with HIPAA-release issues delaying full production.
- Court denied Aetna’s motion to dismiss, allowing counts alleging ADA/MHRA discrimination and Maine personnel-file claims to proceed based on alleged agency/representative roles.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Aetna is Brown’s employer under the ADA | Brown alleges Aetna is BOA’s agent and thus an employer under ADA. | Aetna is not an employer or covered entity; it is a benefits administrator, not BOA. | Count I survives; agency/employee status supports liability. |
| Whether Aetna falls within the ADA safe harbor for administering a bona fide benefits plan | Brown argues safe harbor does not apply because Aetna acted as an employer in deciding leave/accommodation. | Aetna as administrator is within safe harbor if it administers a bona fide plan and does not engage in subterfuge. | Count I survives for purposes of pleading; safe harbor not dispositive at this stage. |
| Whether MHRA claims against Aetna are proper | Aetna acted in the interest of BOA in discriminatory decisions, making it liable under MHRA. | Aetna cannot be an employer under MHRA or merely a plan administrator. | Count II survives; MHRA may apply to Aetna as an agent or legal representative. |
| Whether Maine’s Personnel Files Law applies to Aetna | Aetna, as BOA’s legal representative, should produce personnel records. | Only employers may be liable under the statute; Aetna contends not an employer. | Count III survives; Aetna may be BOA’s legal representative and thus subject to production. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carparts Distrib. Ctr., Inc. v. Auto. Wholesaler’s Ass’n of New England, Inc., 37 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 1994) (three theories of ‘employer’ status for ADA Title I; agency theory favored; control theory considered later)
- Lopez v. Massachusetts, 588 F.3d 69 (1st Cir. 2009) (rejects broad ‘de facto’ employer approach; uses EEOC factors for agency/employer analysis)
- Camacho v. Puerto Rico Ports Authority, 369 F.3d 570 (1st Cir. 2004) (agency principles applied to assess employer-like control; retirement plan administration insufficient)
- DeLia v. Verizon Communications Inc., 656 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2011) (employee benefits administration considered; control over manner of work is key)
- Koshy, 2010 ME 44, 995 A.2d 651 (Me. 2010) (ME Supreme Court factors for agency between principal and agent)