144 F.4th 1194
10th Cir.2025Background
- David Jenny, a longtime executive at L3Harris Technologies, developed recurring cellulitis aggravated by cramped airline travel, requiring medical accommodation.
- Jenny was given permission to book extra-legroom seats, but soon after, was denied work travel, demoted, and ultimately discharged.
- He sued L3Harris for discrimination and retaliation under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act, asserting these actions were linked to his disability and accommodation request.
- The district court, applying the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, found Jenny made a prima facie case and presented evidence of pretext for his firing, but still granted summary judgment for L3Harris, relying on Reeves’s narrow exception for summary judgment.
- The Tenth Circuit reversed, holding that the evidence did not fit Reeves’s exception and Jenny’s discrimination and retaliation claims should proceed to a jury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was proper under Reeves despite evidence of pretext | Jenny satisfied McDonnell Douglas and offered ample evidence of pretext; Reeves's exception doesn't apply | L3Harris argued the record conclusively showed a nondiscriminatory reason for discharge (Jenny asked to be “packaged out”) | Summary judgment improper; Reeves exception inapplicable here |
| Sufficiency of evidence linking termination to disability or accommodation request | Jenny presented evidence of discriminatory animus, travel denials, demotion, and shifting justifications | L3Harris claimed no direct evidence linked decision to disability, and firing was due to alleged request to leave | Evidence, viewed favorably for Jenny, is sufficient to create a triable fact question |
| Application of McDonnell Douglas pretext analysis at summary judgment | Jenny argued a jury should assess the true motivation once pretext is shown | L3Harris asserted plaintiff must show ‘more than’ pretext, requiring direct linkage to discrimination | Showing pretext alone suffices to go to a jury under Reeves |
| Whether the district court properly weighed evidence under summary judgment standards | Jenny argued the district court improperly weighed facts and drew inferences for defendant | L3Harris maintained district court correctly identified a lack of sufficient evidence of discriminatory motive | Court must view facts favorably for nonmovant; jury determines motive |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes burden-shifting framework for employment discrimination claims)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (clarifies pretext-plus is not required and sets out narrow exceptions for summary judgment)
- Jones v. Oklahoma City Public Schools, 617 F.3d 1273 (addresses pretext and the application of Reeves in summary judgment context)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard – all facts viewed in nonmovant’s favor)
- Staub v. Proctor Hospital, 562 U.S. 411 (discriminatory animus must come from decisionmaker)