85 F.4th 670
1st Cir.2023Background
- Nancy Der Sarkisian, a 69-year-old ninth-grade English teacher at Austin Preparatory School, took leave for hip surgery in Sept. 2019; complications led to multiple surgeries and doctors’ estimates that she would be disabled for an additional 3–6 months.
- Austin Prep had recently replaced a prior teachers’ agreement (110 sick days + 1-year unpaid extended leave) with a new policy (65 sick days and long-term disability insurance after a 90-day waiting period).
- Der Sarkisian used paid sick leave and applied for long-term disability; her physician completed forms stating she was “unable to work in any capacity” and would be totally disabled for 3–6 months.
- Austin Prep retained a per-diem substitute for her five classes and terminated Der Sarkisian in December 2019, citing exhausted leave, need to fill the position, and an open-ended return date; the school invited her to reapply when cleared.
- Der Sarkisian sued for disability discrimination under the ADA and Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B, and for age discrimination under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B; the district court granted summary judgment to Austin Prep and the First Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Der Sarkisian was a "qualified individual" under the ADA because a further unpaid/extended leave was a reasonable accommodation | Der Sarkisian: an additional extension of leave (per physician’s 3–6 month estimate) was a reasonable accommodation and would allow return to perform essential functions | Austin Prep: regular, in-person attendance is an essential function for a teacher; her request was open-ended, imposed operational burdens (continuity of instruction, temporary substitute instability), and was facially unreasonable | Held: Affirmed for Austin Prep — regular attendance is essential and the open-ended leave request was not facially reasonable; plaintiff failed to show a reasonable accommodation and thus was not a qualified individual. |
| Whether Austin Prep failed to engage in the interactive accommodation process | Der Sarkisian: school did not adequately engage in interactive process to explore alternatives | Austin Prep: submitted Accommodation Inquiry, considered physician’s responses, and termination was based on legitimate operational needs once leave became indefinite | Held: Court did not reach interactive-process claim on the merits because plaintiff failed to show a reasonable accommodation existed. |
| Whether termination was age-discriminatory (pretext) under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B | Der Sarkisian: disparate treatment shown by comparison to a younger teacher (Katy Haughn) who took medical leave | Austin Prep: treated Haughn the same way (terminated when her medical form showed inability to perform essential functions); proffered legitimate nondiscriminatory reason to fill position | Held: Affirmed for Austin Prep — plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact on pretext; comparator did not demonstrate disparate treatment. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (framework for burden-shifting in discrimination cases)
- García-Ayala v. Lederle Parenterals, Inc., 212 F.3d 638 (1st Cir. 2000) (reasonableness of leave extensions depends on facts; tests for reasonable accommodation)
- Criado v. IBM Corp., 145 F.3d 437 (1st Cir. 1998) (leave extension found reasonable where leave was temporary and employer policies supported accommodation)
- US Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391 (U.S. 2002) (accommodation must be reasonable on its face)
- Reed v. LePage Bakeries, Inc., 244 F.3d 254 (1st Cir. 2001) (feasibility standard for facial reasonableness of accommodations)
- Echevarría v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceutical LP, 856 F.3d 119 (1st Cir. 2017) (collecting cases rejecting open-ended leave as facially unreasonable)
- Henry v. United Bank, 686 F.3d 50 (1st Cir. 2012) (open-ended leave requests can be unreasonable)
- Richardson v. Friendly Ice Cream Corp., 594 F.3d 69 (1st Cir. 2010) (employer not required to reassign essential functions or make other workers’ jobs more onerous)
- Abramian v. President & Fellows of Harvard Coll., 731 N.E.2d 1075 (Mass. 2000) (Massachusetts application of McDonnell Douglas for age-discrimination claims)