171 F. Supp. 3d 1
D. Mass.2016Background
- Izzo was a long‑time Lids store manager whose Braintree store received poor performance reports from his supervisor, Matthew Clark, throughout 2012.
- On August 30, 2012, Clark and Izzo had a mall conversation; Izzo says Clark demanded he admit to drug or alcohol abuse and then escorted him out and terminated him; Genesco says Izzo resigned after Clark offered EAP help and possible discipline.
- Izzo filed an MCAD charge alleging he was fired because his employer erroneously believed he was addicted to or using drugs/alcohol; MCAD found probable cause; Izzo then sued under the ADA (Count I) and Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B (Count II).
- Genesco moved for summary judgment, arguing (inter alia) that Izzo either was not disabled/"regarded as" disabled and that he quit rather than being fired; Genesco also invoked the ADA exclusion for current illegal drug users.
- The district court denied summary judgment as to the ADA claim, finding genuine disputes of material fact (whether Izzo was regarded as a current drug user/addict and whether he was fired or resigned, and whether the proffered performance reasons were pretextual).
- The court granted summary judgment on the Chapter 151B claim because Massachusetts applies the pre‑ADAAA, stricter "regarded as" standard requiring a perceived substantial limitation on the major life activity of working (a class or broad range of jobs), and Izzo produced no evidence Clark perceived such a broad limitation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Izzo "regarded as" disabled under the ADA (perceived drug/alcohol use/addiction)? | Clark perceived Izzo as currently using or addicted; Izzo denies actual use, so he is "erroneously regarded as" disabled and protected. | If Izzo actually was a current illegal drug user or quit, ADA protection may not apply; Genesco contends Izzo resigned and Clark merely offered EAP. | Genuine dispute exists on perception of drug use/addiction; summary judgment denied on ADA claim. |
| Did Genesco take an adverse employment action (termination) or did Izzo resign? | Izzo says he was escorted out and fired after refusing to admit substance abuse. | Genesco says Izzo put down keys and left, told Clark he would resign to preserve unemployment benefits. | Disputed factual issue for jury; court declined to resolve on summary judgment. |
| Was Genesco’s stated reason (poor store performance) a pretext for disability discrimination under the ADA? | Izzo argues he was fired for perceived disability, not poor performance; the August 30 encounter supports pretext. | Genesco points to objective poor performance reviews as legitimate nondiscriminatory reason. | Court found enough disputed facts about motive and credibility to preclude summary judgment; pretext is triable. |
| Is Izzo "regarded as" handicapped under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B? | Izzo contends Clark’s view that he couldn’t be trusted back in the store shows Clark considered him unfit for other employment. | Genesco argues any perception related only to the specific job; Massachusetts requires perception of a substantial limitation on the major life activity of working (broad class of jobs). | Court held Izzo failed to show a perceived substantial limitation on working broadly; Chapter 151B claim dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Thompson v. Davis, 295 F.3d 890 (9th Cir. 2002) (ADA protects those erroneously regarded as drug users when they are not)
- Nielsen v. Moroni Feed Co., 162 F.3d 604 (10th Cir. 1998) (ADA protects employees erroneously regarded as current illegal drug users)
- Jones v. City of Boston, 752 F.3d 38 (1st Cir. 2014) (distinguishing perceptions of drug use from perceptions of addiction in ADA contexts)
- Sullivan v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc., 358 F.3d 110 (1st Cir. 2004) (discussion of "regarded as" disability and substantial limitation analysis)
- Bailey v. Georgia‑Pacific Corp., 306 F.3d 1162 (1st Cir. 2002) (alcoholism is an impairment; proof of inability to perform a single job does not establish substantial limitation on working)
- City of New Bedford v. Massachusetts Comm’n Against Discrimination, 440 Mass. 450 (Mass. 2003) (Massachusetts requires pre‑ADAAA standard: perceived impairment must substantially limit major life activity of working)