Delgado-Echevarria v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP
856 F.3d 119
1st Cir.2017Background
- Delgado worked for AstraZeneca as a Pharmaceutical Sales Specialist (hired 2001; promoted 2009) and reported a pituitary microadenoma and related biopsies to her supervisor; she later sought treatment for severe depression and anxiety and was placed on short-term disability (STD) leave beginning December 12, 2011.
- AstraZeneca initially granted STD benefits retroactive to December 12, 2011 and extended them intermittently through April 30, 2012, but suspended/terminated benefits when it concluded Delgado had not provided adequate documentation.
- Delgado’s psychiatrist, Dr. Sánchez, submitted various treatment records and a form indicating an estimated 12-month period of incapacity; AstraZeneca’s occupational-health reviewer concluded the documentation did not support reinstating benefits.
- AstraZeneca sent letters warning Delgado to return to work by specified dates or be presumed to have resigned; after she did not return, AstraZeneca notified her that her termination would be effective (citing both failure to return/resignation and a reorganization that eliminated her position) and offered severance.
- Delgado sued under the ADA and Puerto Rico law (Law 44, Article 1802, Law 80, among others). The district court granted summary judgment for AstraZeneca; Delgado appealed. The First Circuit affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Delgado was a "qualified individual" under the ADA and whether a 12‑month leave extension was a reasonable accommodation | Delgado argued her psychiatrist indicated 12 months would allow recovery and that extended leave was a reasonable accommodation | AstraZeneca argued Delgado could not show the requested leave was facially reasonable or that the documentation supported a return after 12 months | Held for AstraZeneca: Delgado failed to show the accommodation would enable return to essential job functions or that 12 months was facially reasonable |
| Whether employer failed to engage in the interactive process under the ADA | Delgado contended AstraZeneca did not engage in the interactive process after her leave request | AstraZeneca maintained that even if it did not fully engage, Delgado failed to identify a reasonable accommodation, so no interactive-process claim survives | Held for AstraZeneca: claim fails because Delgado did not show an available reasonable accommodation |
| Whether termination was retaliatory under the ADA | Delgado argued her May 17 leave request was protected activity and termination was causally connected/retaliatory | AstraZeneca offered nondiscriminatory reasons: failure to return after STD ended, presumed resignation, and elimination of position in reorganization | Held for AstraZeneca: even assuming prima facie retaliation, AstraZeneca offered legitimate reasons and Delgado failed to show pretext |
| Whether Delgado’s Puerto Rico claims (Law 44, Article 1802, Law 80) survive independent of ADA claims | Delgado sought recovery under Law 44, Article 1802 (negligence and emotional distress), and Law 80 wrongful discharge | AstraZeneca argued Law 44 mirrors the ADA; Article 1802 claims duplicate ADA claims and lack independently pleaded conduct; Law 80 justified by employer’s business reasons | Held for AstraZeneca: Law 44 fails with ADA; Article 1802 dismissed for lack of independent tortuous conduct and undeveloped argument; Law 80 dismissed because AstraZeneca met burden (reasonable business-based grounds) and Delgado failed to rebut pretextually |
Key Cases Cited
- Mulloy v. Acushnet Co., 460 F.3d 141 (1st Cir.) (qualified-individual element and accommodation analysis)
- Reed v. LePage Bakeries, Inc., 244 F.3d 254 (1st Cir.) (two-part plaintiff burden: effectiveness and facial reasonableness of accommodation)
- García-Ayala v. Lederle Parenterals, Inc., 212 F.3d 638 (1st Cir.) (leave can be reasonable; fact-specific inquiry)
- Jones v. Nationwide Life Ins. Co., 696 F.3d 78 (1st Cir.) (summary judgment may be affirmed on any record basis; burden-shifting and reasonableness analysis)
- Hwang v. Kan. State Univ., 753 F.3d 1159 (10th Cir.) (long leaves—e.g., six months or more—may be unreasonable accommodations)