Burnett v. Ocean Props., Ltd.
327 F. Supp. 3d 198
D. Me.2018Background
- Plaintiff Ryan Burnett, a long‑term wheelchair user employed as a reservations agent by AmeriPort/Ocean Properties, sued under the ADA, Maine Human Rights Act, and Maine Whistleblower Protection Act for discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation; defendants moved for summary judgment.
- Relevant accessibility problems over ~2009–2016 included: locked rear entrance/keycard issues, occasional blocked/unshoveled ramps after snow, an elevator outage and temporary first‑floor workspace during repairs, an inaccessible restroom later modified, and heavy wooden lobby doors at the golf‑club location that Burnett repeatedly requested be fitted with automatic push‑buttons.
- Burnett had multiple corrective actions for tardiness/attendance; he typically worked an early (7 a.m.) shift, sometimes missed or was late, and sometimes requested time off in advance for disability‑related reasons (which were granted when made in advance).
- Burnett filed a Maine Human Rights Charge on June 29, 2015; many earlier incidents predate the 300‑day limitations window applicable to his administrative charge.
- The court found (1) no adverse employment action sufficient to support disparate‑treatment or retaliation claims and granted summary judgment on those claims, but (2) denied summary judgment on Burnett's failure‑to‑accommodate claim limited to the heavy wooden doors, finding a genuine fact issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Disparate treatment (ADA) — was Burnett subjected to adverse employment action because of disability? | Burnett argued corrective actions, accessibility incidents, and an allegedly hostile environment combined to constitute adverse actions and constructive discharge. | AmeriPort said there was no demotion, pay reduction, or materially adverse act; write‑ups and isolated incidents are not adverse and Burnett left for a better job. | Court: No adverse employment action shown; disparate‑treatment claim dismissed. |
| Failure to accommodate — did employer fail to provide reasonable accommodations? | Burnett claimed multiple access problems; specifically sought automatic push‑button doors at golf‑club entrance and alleged unreasonable delay/nonresponse. | AmeriPort contended it provided reasonable accommodations (keycard/unlocked door, parking under canopy, restroom modifications, temporary workspace) and engaged in the interactive process; attendance essential. | Court: Most accommodations were reasonable as a matter of law, but a genuine dispute exists about the heavy wooden doors; summary judgment denied as to that discrete failure‑to‑accommodate claim. |
| Retaliation — did protected activity (requests/charge) lead to adverse action? | Burnett asserted discipline for attendance and other conduct constituted retaliation tied to his accommodation requests and Charge. | AmeriPort admitted protected activity but argued no adverse employment action occurred after the Charge and no causal link. | Court: No adverse action shown; retaliation claim dismissed. |
| Timeliness / scope of administrative exhaustion | Burnett relied on incidents across tenure and the Charge; some incidents were background to timely claims. | AmeriPort emphasized the 300‑day limitations and that many raised incidents predate the filing. | Court: Applied Morgan scope and exceptions; only acts within the 300‑day window or those reasonably encompassed by the Charge could be considered; door denial within window survives. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden‑shifting framework for disparate treatment)
- Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002) (discrete acts vs. continuing violations and filing period rules)
- Thornton v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 587 F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 2009) (administrative exhaustion and scope of investigation rule)
- Colon‑Fontanez v. Municipality of San Juan, 660 F.3d 17 (1st Cir. 2011) (attendance as essential function guidance)
- Ward v. Massachusetts Health Research Inst., 209 F.3d 29 (1st Cir. 2000) (qualified individual / essential functions allocation of proof)
- Reed v. LePage Bakeries, Inc., 244 F.3d 254 (1st Cir. 2001) (reasonable accommodation feasibility analysis)
- Freadman v. Metropolitan Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 484 F.3d 91 (1st Cir. 2007) (elements for failure‑to‑accommodate claim)
- Noll v. International Business Machines Corp., 787 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 2015) (employer need not provide employee's preferred accommodation)
- Azimi v. Jordan's Meats, Inc., 456 F.3d 228 (1st Cir. 2006) (standards for noneconomic damages in discrimination cases)