Jia Sheng v. MTBank Corporation
848 F.3d 78
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Jia Sheng worked remotely for M&T Bank (MTBank) under an Alternative Work Arrangement (AWA) after relocating to California; in 2012 MTBank announced a reorganization requiring leads to be in Buffalo part-time.
- Sheng notified MTBank she was pregnant and provided a physician’s note restricting air travel; MTBank concluded it lacked suitable non-project work and told her to relocate to Buffalo, take disability leave, or be terminated with severance.
- Sheng’s counsel sent a demand/settlement letter; during a follow-up call, MTBank’s counsel offered reinstatement with remote work for the pregnancy period. The parties had agreed Rule 408 would govern the conversation and litigation had been threatened.
- Sheng sued, alleging FMLA, ADA, Title VII, NYSHRL, FEHA and other claims; before trial the district court admitted evidence of MTBank’s reinstatement offer under Rule 408 and disqualified both counsel under the advocate‑witness rule.
- After a jury verdict for MTBank on remaining claims and several Rule 50(a) rulings for MTBank, Sheng appealed. The Second Circuit vacated the judgment in part (admitting the reinstatement offer and disqualification) and dismissed the appeal as to unappealed NYSHRL Rule 50 ruling; it affirmed the jury instructions on the ADA interactive‑process issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility under Fed. R. Evid. 408 of MTBank’s reinstatement offer | Sheng argued the offer was a settlement offer and inadmissible under Rule 408 | MTBank argued the offer was unconditional (not a compromise) and therefore admissible to show failure to mitigate | Court held admission was error: offer was conditioned on dropping claims as a matter of law and thus excluded under Rule 408; admission was not harmless; vacated jury verdict portion |
| Advocate‑witness disqualification of counsel | Sheng contended disqualification was improper | MTBank relied on district court’s finding that the offer’s admissibility made counsels’ testimony necessary, necessitating disqualification | Disqualification order vacated because it rested on erroneous admission of the reinstatement offer; counsels may appear in further proceedings |
| Jury instruction: ADA interactive‑process as independent cause of action | Sheng sought instruction that failure to engage in interactive process alone supports ADA failure‑to‑accommodate claim | MTBank argued interactive‑process failure is not an independent ADA claim absent proof an accommodation was possible | Court held no independent ADA cause for interactive‑process failure; interactive‑process evidence may be used to show discrimination if plaintiff also shows a feasible accommodation |
| NYSHRL Rule 50(a) challenge and appealability | Sheng argued the NYSHRL failure‑to‑accommodate claim was legally equivalent to her ADA claim and should not have been decided as a matter of law | MTBank argued district court properly entered judgment as a matter of law; appeal did not properly designate that order | Court held Sheng failed to preserve appeal on NYSHRL Rule 50(a) ruling (notice of appeal insufficient); that portion of appeal dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Pierce v. F.R. Tripler & Co., 955 F.2d 820 (2d Cir.) (1992) (offers between counsel after threatened litigation are presumed settlement offers under Rule 408)
- Lightfoot v. Union Carbide Corp., 110 F.3d 898 (2d Cir. 1997) (an unconditional offer cannot be a settlement under Rule 408)
- McBride v. BIC Consumer Products Mfg. Co., Inc., 583 F.3d 92 (2d Cir. 2009) (failure to engage in interactive process is not an independent ADA claim; may be evidence of discrimination when accommodation was possible)
- DiBella v. Hopkins, 403 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2005) (appellate review draws inferences in favor of the jury verdict when reviewing the record)