987 F.3d 57
1st Cir.2021Background
- Ryan Burnett, a long‑term paraplegic, worked at a reservations call center operated by AmeriPort and marketed as Ocean Properties Reservations; the public clubhouse entrance had heavy outward‑closing wooden doors that made entry difficult from a wheelchair.
- On August 28, 2014 Burnett requested push‑button automatic doors; his request was forwarded to supervisors but went unanswered; in October 2014 he injured his wrist entering the clubhouse; he filed an MHRC complaint in June 2015 and resigned in February 2016.
- At trial defendants stipulated that Burnett had a disability, was qualified for his job, and that replacing the doors would not be an undue hardship; the only triable issue was whether defendants failed to reasonably accommodate him by not installing automatic doors.
- The jury found defendants liable, concluded AmeriPort and Ocean Properties constituted an integrated (single) employer, awarded $150,000 in compensatory damages and $500,000 in punitive damages; the district court reduced punitive damages to $350,000 and entered judgment for Burnett.
- District court excluded late‑disclosed evidence that a contractor (Mooney) tested the doors in 2013/2014; post‑trial motions (JMOL, new trial, remittitur) were denied, and defendants appealed.
- The First Circuit affirmed: it upheld the finding of an integrated employer, that the requested accommodation was reasonable, that punitive damages were supportable by reckless indifference, and that trial‑error claims (inconsistent verdict, witness exclusion, counsel remarks) did not warrant reversal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Employment relationship — single integrated employer | Burnett argued AmeriPort and Ocean Properties were interrelated (shared management, payroll, documents, office space, logos) and thus a single employer | Defendants argued insufficient evidence of interrelation or common ownership to make Ocean Properties liable | Court: Evidence on centralized control, interrelated operations, and common management supported single integrated‑employer finding; not all four factors required |
| Reasonable accommodation — necessity and reasonableness | Burnett argued heavy doors impeded access and automatic doors were a reasonable accommodation (and replacement was not undue hardship) | Defendants argued Burnett could perform essential job functions without accommodation, so request was unnecessary/unreasonable | Court: Even if Burnett could perform job once inside, doors were not readily accessible; jury could find accommodation reasonable and required under ADA/MHRA |
| Punitive damages — malice or reckless indifference | Burnett argued repeated failure to respond to requests and complaints showed reckless indifference to statutory rights | Defendants argued they acted in good faith (policy, consultation, belief doors compliant) | Court: Repeated nonresponse and inadequate follow‑up could support reckless indifference; punitive award sustained (later remitted but not vacated) |
| Alleged trial errors (inconsistent verdict, excluded Mooney testimony, improper closings) | Burnett maintained trial was fair; any errors harmless | Defendants claimed verdict inconsistent, exclusion of Mooney prejudiced defense, and counsel’s closing violated Golden Rule and suggested damages | Court: Defendants waived inconsistent‑verdict challenge; exclusion of late‑disclosed Mooney testimony was proper Rule 37 sanction; counsel’s Golden‑Rule comment improper but harmless; suggested damages comment plain error but not prejudicial—no new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Torres‑Negrón v. Merck & Co., Inc., 488 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2007) (integrated‑enterprise factors for single employer analysis)
- Romano v. U‑Haul Int'l, 233 F.3d 655 (1st Cir. 2000) (framework for interrelation, control, common management/ownership factors)
- Ward v. Mass. Health Research Inst., 209 F.3d 29 (1st Cir. 2000) (analysis of "essential functions" and qualification under ADA)
- U.S. Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391 (2002) (reasonable accommodation and workplace preferences under ADA)
- Kolstad v. American Dental Association, 527 U.S. 526 (1999) (standard for punitive damages under federal employment statutes)
- Bielunas v. F/V Misty Dawn, Inc., 621 F.3d 72 (1st Cir. 2010) (standards for reviewing jury verdicts and preserved objections)
- Esposito v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 590 F.3d 72 (1st Cir. 2009) (factors for excluding evidence as sanction for discovery violations)
- Escribano‑Reyes v. Professional Hepa Certificate Corp., 817 F.3d 380 (1st Cir. 2016) (payroll and employment relationship discussion; payroll not dispositive)
- Granfield v. CSX Transp., Inc., 597 F.3d 474 (1st Cir. 2010) (Golden Rule prohibition and harmless‑error analysis)