Dewitt v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.
845 F.3d 1299
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Janna DeWitt, an insulin-dependent Type I diabetic, worked as a customer service representative for Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. (SWBTC) and was permitted breaks to treat low blood sugar.
- In Jan 2010 DeWitt committed a "cramming" violation; she was placed on a Last Chance Agreement that warned termination for further violations.
- On March 3, 2010 DeWitt experienced a severe low-blood-sugar episode at work and unintentionally (she says) hung up on at least two customers; she was suspended after supervisors reviewed call recordings and later terminated on March 15, 2010 for violating conduct rules while on the Last Chance Agreement.
- DeWitt had taken intermittent FMLA leave related to diabetes in 2009–2010; coworkers testified some managers viewed FMLA use negatively.
- DeWitt sued under the ADA/ADAAA for disability discrimination and failure to accommodate (seeking retroactive leniency for misconduct) and under the FMLA for retaliation; the district court granted summary judgment for SWBTC. The Tenth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADA termination discrimination | DeWitt: termination was motivated by disability (low blood sugar caused call drops) | SWBTC: terminated for intentional hanging up on customers in violation of Code of Conduct while on Last Chance Agreement (legitimate nondiscriminatory reason) | Affirmed for SWBTC — plaintiff failed to show pretext; decisionmaker honestly believed misconduct occurred |
| ADA failure to accommodate | DeWitt: employer should have excused/overlooked the disconnected calls as an accommodation | SWBTC: requested retroactive leniency for past misconduct is not a "reasonable accommodation" under ADA/ADAAA | Affirmed for SWBTC — ADA does not require excusing past misconduct; retroactive forgiveness is not a required accommodation |
| FMLA retaliation | DeWitt: termination was retaliation for taking FMLA leave | SWBTC: same nondiscriminatory reason (misconduct) | Affirmed for SWBTC — DeWitt failed to show employer's reason was pretext for retaliation |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishing burden-shifting framework for circumstantial discrimination/retaliation claims)
- Smothers v. Solvay Chems., Inc., 740 F.3d 530 (10th Cir. 2014) (summary judgment standard and unfair-investigation inference for ADA/FMLA claims)
- Morgan v. Hilti, Inc., 108 F.3d 1319 (10th Cir. 1997) (pretext shown via weaknesses, implausibilities, inconsistencies)
- Stalter v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 195 F.3d 285 (7th Cir. 1999) (illustrative § — employer's sincere application of rule can still be discredited by evidence of excessiveness or disparate treatment)
- Johnson v. Weld County, 594 F.3d 1202 (10th Cir. 2010) (explaining honest-belief analysis and role of decisionmaker's perspective)