Colon-Fontanez v. Municipality of San Juan
660 F.3d 17
| 1st Cir. | 2011Background
- Colón-Fontánez began working for the Municipality in 1989, was reclassified as a regular employee in 1992, and was appointed Auction Officer with retroactive effect May 1, 2005 (June 30, 2006 formal appointment).
- Her duties as Auction Officer required mandatory presence in the Auction Department and prohibited removing auction papers from the office.
- Colón had a long history of health-related absences and was repeatedly accommodated, but attendance remained a recurrent issue affecting assignments and scheduling.
- Municipality attendance policies permitted illness-related leave but authorized disciplinary measures for frequent absences or excessive leave balances.
- Colón filed a petition with the Office of the Ombudsman and an EEOC charge in 2007 asserting ADA discrimination and retaliation; the district court granted summary judgment for the Municipality in 2009, and the First Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADA: Was Colón a qualified individual under the ADA? | Colón could perform essential functions with accommodations. | Colón could not meet essential attendance function; accommodations could not cure unqualified status. | No; attendance was essential and Colón’s absenteeism rendered her unqualified. |
| Retaliation: Did protected ADA activity cause adverse action? | Protected conduct (Accommodation request) led to retaliatory actions. | No causal link or material adverse action shown. | No proximate causation or material harm established; retaliation claim failed. |
| Hostile environment: Was there a hostile work environment? | Repeated supervisor conduct created a hostile environment. | Actions were not severe or pervasive enough to alter conditions of employment. | Insufficient severity or pervasiveness; no hostile environment. |
| Evidentiary rulings: Did district court properly handle translations and paralegal charts? | Translations and paralegal charts should be considered. | Exhibits not properly translated or foundationally challenged; charts admissible. | No reversible error; district court did not abuse discretion on translation and chart admission. |
| Equal protection: Was the district court’s sua sponte dismissal proper? | Equal protection claim pled in jurisdiction section. | Claim inadequately pled and not properly argued; district court did not err. | District court did not err in declining to consider an unarticulated, inadequately pled equal protection claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mulloy v. Acushnet Co., 460 F.3d 141 (1st Cir. 2006) (ADA/summary judgment de novo review and standards apposite.)
- EEOC v. Amego, Inc., 110 F.3d 135 (1st Cir. 1997) (Standard for ADA claims and record interpretation.)
- Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (U.S. 2006) (Adverse action standard in retaliation contexts.)
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (U.S. 1998) (Hostile work environment framework and severity analysis.)
- García-Ayala v. Lederle Parenterals, Inc., 212 F.3d 638 (1st Cir. 2000) (Two-step ADA qualification analysis.)
- Ríos-Jiménez v. Principi, 520 F.3d 31 (1st Cir. 2008) (Attendance essential function; essential function analysis.)
- Calero-Cerezo v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 355 F.3d 6 (1st Cir. 2004) (Attendance can be an essential function of a job.)
- Soileau v. Guilford of Me., Inc., 105 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 1997) (Accommodations and retaliation considerations in ADA context.)