Jones v. Walgreen Co.
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18061
| D. Mass. | 2011Background
- Plaintiff Pamela Jones, Store Manager for Walgreens in Enfield, CT, injured her knee in 2004 and took medical leave.
- Dr. Luber reported various restrictions and suggested sedentary work; Jones sought reasonable accommodations in 2005.
- Jones accepted a lower-level Training Manager position in 2005 but soon took another medical leave for foot surgery.
- Jones filed discrimination complaints in 2005-2006; Walgreens offered potential district-office roles but she did not specify locations.
- In 2006 Walgreens terminated Jones after updated medical restrictions in September 2006 limited her ability to perform essential Store Manager duties.
- Plaintiff alleged ADA/state disability discrimination and retaliation; court granted summary judgment for Walgreens on Counts I–IV.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jones was disabled under the ADA | Jones is disabled due to chronic knee conditions and walking/standing restrictions. | Even with restrictions, Jones was not substantially limited in major life activities; not disabled. | Court assumed disability for analysis but found no substantial evidence of substantial limitation; analysis proceeds to prong two. |
| Whether Jones could perform the essential functions of Store Manager with reasonable accommodations | Jones could perform with accommodations; she previously worked as Store Manager and delegated tasks. | Store Manager is physically demanding; restrictions prevent performance of essential functions; no accommodation would suffice. | Jones failed to show she could perform essential functions with or without accommodations; Walgreens entitled to summary judgment on Counts III and IV. |
| Whether Walgreens terminated Jones because of disability (adverse action) | Termination was a discriminatory act based on disability. | Termination was based on updated permanent restrictions from Dr. Luber; not discriminatory, but due to inability to perform essential functions. | Termination based on restrictions, not disability per se; no actionable discrimination found. |
| Whether Jones proved a prima facie retaliation claim | Timing between protected activity (lawsuit) and termination shows retaliation. | Other factors and legitimate reasons undermine retaliation; timing is insufficient. | No evidence of retaliation; summary judgment for Walgreens on Counts I and II. |
Key Cases Cited
- Calef v. Gillette Co., 322 F.3d 75 (1st Cir.2003) (work restrictions alone insufficient to prove disability)
- Richardson v. Friendly Ice Cream Corp., 594 F.3d 69 (1st Cir.2010) (undisputed restrictions preclude qualified status; past performance not enough)
- Mulloy v. Acushnet Co., 460 F.3d 141 (1st Cir.2006) (employer not required to retain when limitations prevent function)
- St. Laurent v. UPS, 416 F.Supp.2d 212 (D.Mass.2006) (employer may terminate based on actual limitations even if disability)
- Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2001) (very close temporal proximity required for retaliation causation)
- Ahern v. Shinseki, 629 F.3d 49 (1st Cir.2010) (short-term proximity may show causation in retaliation claims)
- Carreras v. Sajo, 596 F.3d 25 (1st Cir.2010) (pretext standard for discrimination claims)
- Toyota Motor Mfg., Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2002) (definition of disability under ADA)
- Bennett v. Saint-Gobain Corp., 507 F.3d 23 (1st Cir.2007) (retaliation analysis and evidence considerations)