Cherkaoui v. City of Quincy
877 F.3d 14
| 1st Cir. | 2017Background
- Cherkaoui, a long‑time Quincy public school teacher who converted to Islam and began wearing a headscarf in 2009, alleges that after 2009 she experienced discriminatory and retaliatory treatment and that the City failed to reasonably accommodate her ADHD.
- Relevant events include a split Atlantic/Sterling assignment (2009), successive warnings and a three‑day suspension for tardiness, repeated requests for IMEs tied to extended sick‑leave, reassignment to teach ELL with a science component and large/mixed grade classes, and denied/untimely transfer requests.
- Cherkaoui filed EEOC charges in January 2010 (religion, retaliation; amended to add disability) and again in August 2013 (continuing discrimination; later amended to add constructive discharge), and sued after receiving a Right‑to‑Sue letter.
- The City defended by citing nondiscriminatory reasons: tardiness policy enforcement, staffing/student‑need driven scheduling, union/contract rules for transfers and IMEs, and an investigation that found no harassment.
- The district court adopted a magistrate’s Report recommending summary judgment for the City on discrimination, retaliation, and constructive discharge claims; the First CircuitAFFIRMED.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Religious and disability discrimination (failure to accommodate; adverse actions) | Cherkaoui contends that post‑2009 actions (warnings, suspension, reassignment, denial of transfers, hostile treatment) were motivated by religion and disability and that the City failed to accommodate ADHD | City argues actions were based on legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons (tardiness, staffing/student needs, union/contract rules) and that many complained‑of events were not materially adverse | Court: Even assuming a prima facie case, City offered legitimate reasons and Cherkaoui failed to show pretext; summary judgment for City |
| Retaliation (for filing EEOC charges) | Cherkaoui asserts timing of adverse actions shows retaliation | City points to nondiscriminatory explanations and that temporal proximity is insufficient absent other evidence | Court: Protected activity established but causation lacking; City met its burden; summary judgment for City |
| Constructive discharge | Cherkaoui claims working conditions were intolerable such that resignation was compelled | City notes remedial steps, investigation, accommodations, and that conditions were not objectively intolerable | Court: Working conditions not sufficiently onerous for a reasonable person; summary judgment for City |
| Whether IME requirement or other procedural acts amount to adverse actions | Cherkaoui says IME and related processes were retaliatory/adverse | City shows IME authorized by contract and routinely applied; IME led to extended leave approval | Court: IME requirement was a contractual, nondiscriminatory procedure and not shown to be discriminatorily enforced |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes burden‑shifting framework for disparate treatment claims)
- St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (plaintiff must show employer's proffered reason is pretext to prevail)
- Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (definition of adverse employment action in discrimination/hostile work environment contexts)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard and requirement for significant probative evidence)
- Pina v. Children’s Place, 740 F.3d 785 (First Circuit summary judgment standards in employment cases)
- Suárez v. Pueblo Int’l, Inc., 229 F.3d 49 (objective standard for constructive discharge)