636 F. App'x 16
2d Cir.2015Background
- Dooley was an inflight crewmember for JetBlue who was fired after JetBlue found she had taken several leaves before becoming disabled from a later on‑the‑job injury.
- She sued under the ADA (failure to accommodate and discrimination) and Title VII (sex discrimination and retaliation), and the district court dismissed her amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6).
- The Second Circuit reviews the dismissal de novo, accepting well‑pleaded factual allegations and drawing reasonable inferences for the plaintiff.
- Dooley’s failure‑to‑accommodate theory relied on alleged lack of training for transitional duties, but she did not allege she requested training or accommodation.
- Her Title VII claims relied on temporal proximity (retaliation) and comparator evidence (discrimination); the complaint lacked dates for the protected complaint and alleged comparators’ absences were not factually comparable.
- For the ADA discrimination claim, Dooley alleged she suffered a fracture with nerve damage causing lifting and repetitive‑motion limits and alleged procedural irregularity and temporal proximity between injury and adverse action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADA failure to accommodate — did JetBlue fail to accommodate? | Dooley says JetBlue failed to train/offer transitional duties accommodation. | JetBlue says Dooley never requested the training/accommodation. | Dismissed — plaintiff did not allege a specific request, so employer had no opportunity to refuse. |
| Title VII retaliation — causal link between complaint and adverse action? | Dooley alleges she appealed internally complaining of discrimination and her appeal was denied shortly after. | JetBlue argues timing and causation are not pleaded; no dates or proximate timing alleged. | Dismissed — complaint gives no dates or plausible close temporal nexus to infer causation. |
| Title VII discrimination — disparate treatment using male comparators? | Dooley says two male comparators with job injuries missed work but were not fired; shows disparate treatment. | JetBlue says comparators’ absences were job‑related injuries while Dooley’s pre‑injury absences were not — conduct not comparable. | Dismissed — comparators’ conduct not sufficiently comparable in seriousness. |
| ADA discrimination — adverse action because of disability? | Dooley alleges disability (fracture, nerve damage, lifting limits), procedural irregularity (no progressive discipline), and close timing after injury to infer disability‑based firing. | JetBlue contested disability and lack of inference of discriminatory motive. | Vacated and remanded — Dooley plausibly alleged disability and minimal inference of discriminatory motivation; claim survives pleading stage. |
Key Cases Cited
- McMillan v. City of N.Y., 711 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2013) (elements of ADA failure‑to‑accommodate claim)
- Littlejohn v. City of N.Y., 795 F.3d 297 (2d Cir. 2015) (retaliation prima facie and temporal proximity guidance)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (Sup. Ct.) (burden‑shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Vega v. Hempstead Union Free Sch. Dist., 801 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2015) (plaintiff need only plead plausible support for minimal inference of discrimination)
- Raspardo v. Carlone, 770 F.3d 97 (2d Cir. 2014) (comparator analysis requires comparable conduct/seriousness)
- Parada v. Banco Indus. de Venezuela, C.A., 753 F.3d 62 (2d Cir. 2014) (definition of disability construed broadly under ADA)
- Clark Cty. Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268 (Sup. Ct.) (temporal proximity must be very close to show causation in retaliation)
- Tobin v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 553 F.3d 121 (1st Cir. 2009) (employer's duty to accommodate normally triggered by employee's request)