Kelley v. Correctional Medical Services, Inc., 707 F.3d 108

Kelley, a licensed practical nurse, worked for CMS at Maine State Prison since spring 2007, treating inmates across locations including the main clinic, infirmary, and close unit.
Kelley has a pelvic fracture disability and sought accommodations, facing resistance and admonitions from supervisor Kesteloot to return full-time and to provide proper medical notes.
On October 17, 2008, Kelley's duty assignment was disputed amid a staffing clash; she refused to perform the narcotics count in the main clinic, citing physical limitations, after a speakerphone discussion with Kesteloot and Voorhees.
Kesteloot had previously questioned Kelley’s disability and accommodation requests and allegedly pressured her to abandon or minimize accommodations.
Following the night’s events, Kelley was escorted offsite and CMS recommended termination for refusing a supervisor’s instruction; she was fired the next day, October 28–29, 2008.
The district court granted summary judgment to CMS, holding Kelley failed to show pretext or retaliatory animus; this court vacates and remands to allow juror evaluation of pretext and retaliation evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether CMS's reason for termination was pretext for retaliation	Kelley argues pretext due to disability-based animus shown in prior conduct	CMS contends insubordination/violation of orders justified termination	Triable issue as to pretext and retaliation
Whether Kelley engaged in protected ADA accommodation activity	Kelley's accommodations and requests constitute protected conduct	Accommodation requests do not prove retaliation without causal link	Yes, protected conduct shown sufficient for prima facie case
Whether there is a causal connection between protected conduct and termination	History of disability-based conflict demonstrates retaliatory motive	Termination based on insubordination and policy violation	Triable issue; causation supported by evidence of animus linked to accommodations
Whether the district court properly framed the pretext analysis	Pretext shown by conduct linking to disability and demand for accommodation	Record shows legitimate non-retaliatory reasons	Triable; not enough to grant summary judgment
Whether the evidence supports a finding of retaliatory animus prior to October 17, 2008	Kesteloot's comments and actions show ongoing hostility to accommodation	Prior conduct is not enough to prove retaliation for protected activity	Triable; evidence links hostility to disability

Carreras v. Sajo, Garcia & Partners, 596 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2010) (burden-shifting framework for ADA retaliation)
Caban-Hernández v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 486 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2007) (prima facie retaliation framework under ADA/Title VII)
Vives v. Fajardo, 472 F.3d 19 (1st Cir. 2007) (summary judgment standards in retaliation claims)
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (pretext proof requires showing discriminating intent)
Hodgens v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 144 F.3d 151 (1st Cir. 1998) (pretext inquiry; caution against mechanical formulas)
Che v. Mass. Bay Transp. Auth., 342 F.3d 31 (1st Cir. 2003) (no mechanical pretext; fact-specific inquiry)
Soileau v. Guilford of Maine, Inc., 105 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 1997) (ADA retaliation guidance; protected conduct context)
Roman v. Potter, 604 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2010) (discrimination evidence vs. retaliation; distinguish subjective belief)
Mesnick v. General Elec. Co., 950 F.2d 816 (1st Cir. 1991) (permissible reliance on employer comments showing retaliatory mindset)
Wright v. CompUSA, Inc., 352 F.3d 472 (1st Cir. 2003) (conceivable retaliation after accommodation requests)
Acevedo-Parrilla v. Novartis Ex-Lax, Inc., 696 F.3d 128 (1st Cir. 2012) (ADA retaliation framework and evidence standards)