Kovaco v. Rockbestos-Surprenant Cable Corp.
834 F.3d 128
2d Cir.2016Background
- Kovaco, a maintenance mechanic at Rockbestos, experienced alleged national-origin harassment beginning in 2008 and reported it to management without effective remediation.
- He developed debilitating leg/foot conditions and presented doctor notes recommending light duty; Rockbestos provided electric carts and permitted his use of them as needed.
- In March 2010 an incident occurred where Kovaco removed an OSHA "lock out" tag from a cart; he was suspended March 23 and terminated March 29, 2010 for policy violation.
- While suspended (March 25, 2010) Kovaco applied for SSDI, stating he had "stopped working" March 24, 2010 and was "unable to work;" SSA later found him disabled as of March 24, 2010 and limited to sedentary work.
- Kovaco sued asserting ADA, Title VII, ADEA, and CFEPA claims (discriminatory discharge, hostile work environment, failure to accommodate, retaliation, etc.); district court granted partial summary judgment to Rockbestos on discriminatory discharge (among other claims).
- On appeal the Second Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Rockbestos on discriminatory-discharge claims (ADA, Title VII, ADEA), held Kovaco judicially estopped from asserting he was qualified, found hostile-work-environment claims abandoned, and dismissed appellate review of the CFEPA claim for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kovaco was judicially estopped from asserting he was "qualified" for his job given his SSDI application stating he was "unable to work" | Kovaco: Cleveland allows consistency — he was disabled for SSDI as of Mar 24 but could perform essential functions on Mar 29 with a reasonable accommodation (electric cart) | Rockbestos: SSA determination and Kovaco’s own SSDI statements contradict any claim he was qualified at termination | Held: Judicial estoppel applies — Kovaco failed to offer a sufficient explanation because record showed he already had cart access when he told SSA he was "unable to work"; summary judgment affirmed on discharge claims |
| Whether SSA factual findings estop Kovaco from claiming qualification with accommodation | Kovaco: SSA findings and his statements can be reconciled; Cleveland permits ADA claims based on reasonable accommodation despite SSDI awards | Rockbestos: SSA finding that he was limited to sedentary work and 20-lb lifting undermines qualification | Held: Court rejects estoppel based solely on SSA factual findings untethered to Kovaco’s own positions, but estoppel holds for independent reasons (inconsistent sworn statement plus record) |
| Whether Kovaco adequately preserved hostile-work-environment claims | Kovaco: He had pleaded such claims and they were encompassed in his discrimination allegations | Rockbestos: Notice and briefing show motion sought summary judgment on all claims; plaintiff failed to defend those claims | Held: Even if pleaded, Kovaco abandoned hostile-work-environment claims by not addressing them in his summary-judgment opposition; appellate review denied on merits |
| Whether appellate court has jurisdiction over CFEPA claim | Kovaco: Appeal challenges district court’s September 25, 2013 order generally | Rockbestos: Notice of appeal did not specify CFEPA claim | Held: Dismissed for want of appellate jurisdiction because the notice of appeal did not clearly manifest intent to appeal the CFEPA ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- Cleveland v. Policy Management Sys. Corp., 526 U.S. 795 (1999) (SSDI total-disability statements are not necessarily inconsistent with ADA claims; plaintiff must offer a sufficient explanation to reconcile the positions)
- Robinson v. Concentra Health Servs., 781 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. 2015) (judicial estoppel prevents asserting factual positions in litigation contrary to prior sworn positions to an administrative tribunal)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for prima facie employment-discrimination claims)
- Slattery v. Swiss Reinsurance Am. Corp., 248 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2001) (plaintiff need only show basic skills to satisfy qualification element; ADA qualification requires ability to perform essential functions with or without reasonable accommodation)
- DeRosa v. Nat’l Envelope Corp., 595 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2010) (judicial estoppel analysis in ADA/SSDI context; reconcile apparent contradictions carefully)
- Jackson v. Fed. Express, 766 F.3d 189 (2d Cir. 2014) (failure to address claims in opposition to summary judgment may constitute abandonment of those claims)
- Konikoff v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 234 F.3d 92 (2d Cir. 2000) (appellate courts may affirm on any ground appearing in the record)