Faiola v. APCO Graphics, Inc.
629 F.3d 43
| 1st Cir. | 2010Background
- Faiola, APCO Franklin office sales rep/manager, 1991–2007; responsibilities include sales, visits, and office upkeep.
- From 2003–2006, Faiola failed to meet 40–66% of annual quotas; APCO flagged low New England sales volume.
- Medical history: dysthymia; hypertension; treatment by Dr. Dempsey (2004–2007) with no work restrictions.
- Dr. Levitan treated high blood pressure; by March 2007 BP normalized; no travel/activity restrictions given.
- February 2007: Faiola informed of personal crisis; discussed stress with supervisor but did not cite travel limitations.
- February 21, 2007: Faiola terminated for poor sales performance; district court granted summary judgment for APCO.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Faiola proves disability under ADA/Chapter 151B | Faiola asserts impairments substantially limit major life activities. | No substantial limitation; no障碍 documented; flying not a major activity. | No substantial disability shown; summary judgment for APCO affirmed. |
| Whether Faiola’s reasonable accommodation claim fails | APCO failed to accommodate by excusing flying to conference. | No disability proven; no explicit accommodation request; not argued or shown. | Claim fails; no valid disability or accommodation request established. |
Key Cases Cited
- Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2002) (defining substantial limitation; long-term or permanent impairment standard)
- Carroll v. Xerox Corp., 294 F.3d 231 (1st Cir. 2002) (three-part test for substantial limitation; class of jobs scope)
- Carreras v. Sajo, García & Partners, 596 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2010) (individualized inquiry for disability; substantial limitation standard)
- Reed v. LePage Bakeries, Inc., 244 F.3d 254 (1st Cir. 2001) (reasonable accommodation requires known disability and effective accommodation)
- Ingram v. Brink's, Inc., 414 F.3d 222 (1st Cir. 2005) (summary-judgment standards; avoid improbable inferences)
- Estades-Negroni v. Assocs. Corp. of North Am., 377 F.3d 58 (1st Cir. 2004) (interpretation of ADA/Chapter 151B statutory scope)