Lang v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P.
813 F.3d 447
| 1st Cir. | 2016Background
- Lang worked as an "unloader" at Wal‑Mart; the unloader job description lists "unloading freight from trailer manually or with power equipment" and specifies lifting up to 60 pounds without assistance as a physical activity necessary to perform essential functions.
- Upon pregnancy, Lang's doctor restricted her to lifting no more than 20–25 pounds; she informed management in October 2010 and continued working until she pulled a muscle in November 2010.
- Lang requested an accommodation (assignments that do not require manual unloading or a job not requiring lifting over 20 pounds); Wal‑Mart denied the request, approved FMLA leave, and later classified her separation as a voluntary quit after she failed to submit requested medical documentation while on extended leave.
- Lang alleged federal ADA failure‑to‑accommodate and New Hampshire state disability‑discrimination and retaliation claims; the district court granted summary judgment to Wal‑Mart on all claims.
- On appeal, the First Circuit assumed (without deciding) Lang was disabled for purposes of analysis but focused on whether she could perform the essential functions of the unloader job with or without reasonable accommodation and whether Wal‑Mart’s reasons for termination were pretextual.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wal‑Mart must accommodate lifting restriction under the ADA (failure‑to‑accommodate / essential functions) | Lang: lifting restriction could be accommodated by assigning only trailers not requiring manual unloading or reassigning to a lighter vacant job. | Wal‑Mart: manual lifting up to 60 lbs is an essential function; employer need not exempt an employee from essential duties or create vacancies. | Court: Affirmed — Lang conceded below that 60‑lb lifting was essential; she failed to show she could perform that function with a reasonable accommodation. |
| Whether Wal‑Mart’s failure to engage in an interactive process defeated summary judgment | Lang: Wal‑Mart did not meaningfully engage in the interactive process so summary judgment improper. | Wal‑Mart: no obligation to engage where employee cannot perform essential functions even with accommodation. | Court: Held no interactive‑process duty where record forecloses ability to perform essential duties with accommodation. |
| Whether New Hampshire discrimination claim survives (paralleling ADA analysis) | Lang: state claim should proceed because she was disabled and could be reassigned. | Wal‑Mart: same essential‑function and vacancy arguments defeat state claim. | Court: Dismissed — state discrimination claim fails at prima facie step because Lang cannot show she could perform essential job functions. |
| Whether termination was retaliatory under state law (causal link and pretext) | Lang: termination was pretextual — alleged Wal‑Mart contrived workers’ comp denial, extended light duty to block transfer, and decisionmakers made biased comments. | Wal‑Mart: termination reason (failure to submit required medical documentation) was legitimate and supported by record; comments and speculation insufficient to show pretext. | Court: Affirmed summary judgment — Lang’s evidence was speculative and temporally remote; she did not show the stated reason was false and that retaliation was the true motive. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Walgreen Co., 679 F.3d 9 (1st Cir.) (employee bears burden to show ability to perform essential functions with or without accommodation)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden‑shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993) (pretext requires showing the employer's reason was false and the prohibited basis was the real reason)
- Genereux v. Raytheon Co., 754 F.3d 51 (1st Cir.) (counsel concessions are binding on the client)
- Phelps v. Optima Health, Inc., 251 F.3d 21 (1st Cir.) (employee bears burden to show existence of vacant positions for reassignment accommodation)
- Kvorjak v. Maine, 259 F.3d 48 (1st Cir.) (no duty to engage in interactive process if employee cannot perform essential job duties with reasonable accommodation)