Leavitt v. SW & B Construction Co., 766 F. Supp. 2d 263

Leavitt, a safety director/coordinator, worked for BE & K Construction and then SW & B at the Jay, Maine site from 1995 to 2008.
SW & B assumed operation of the Jay site on January 1, 2007; Leavitt became SW & B’s safety coordinator under supervision of Meek and Morgan.
Ms. Leavitt (Leavitt’s wife) suffered a work-related injury; she pursued workers’ compensation, with SW & B/BE & K involvement through Valerie Camp and others.
Leavitt testified in support of his wife’s workers’ compensation claim in 2004 and 2007, prompting tensions and concerns about his job security.
SW & B conducted safety program evaluations, investigated reporting of injuries, and ultimately terminated Leavitt in June 2008 citing a reduction in force and performance issues; Leavitt subsequently filed EEOC charges alleging ADA discrimination and retaliation.
The court granted summary judgment to SW & B on all counts, finding no prima facie association discrimination under the ADA and no protected activity establishing retaliation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does Leavitt state a prima facie ADA associational discrimination claim?	Leavitt alleges knowledge of his wife’s disability and a causal link to termination.	Association claim falls outside the three Larimer categories (expense, disability by association, distraction); no knowledge of wife’s disability by decisionmakers; termination based on performance.	No; associational claim fails to fit recognized categories; summary judgment for SW & B on Count I.
Was there actionable ADA retaliation against Leavitt for protected activity?	Leavitt argues he was retaliated against for advocating for his wife’s disability claim and testifying at a workers’ comp hearing.	Testimony at a workers’ comp hearing is not protected ADA activity; no causal connection shown between protected conduct and termination.	No; no protected ADA activity established linking to termination; summary judgment for SW & B on Count III.

Oliveras-Sifre v. Puerto Rico Dept. of Health, 214 F.3d 23 (1st Cir. 2000) (associational claims may implicate retaliation, not ADA association provision)
Quint v. Staley Mfg. Co., 172 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1999) (state workers’ compensation conduct can support punitive damages under ADA, not associational discrimination)
Larimer v. International Business Machines Corp., 370 F.3d 698 (7th Cir. 2004) (three-category framework for association discrimination: expense, disability by association, distraction)
Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP, 131 S. Ct. 863 (2011) (zone-of-interests theory applied to retaliation context; relevance to associational claims uncertain)
Barker v. International Paper Co., 993 F. Supp. 10 (D.Me. 1998) (recognized as context for associational claims (cite included in opinion))
Deghand v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 926 F. Supp. 1002 (D.Kan. 1996) (ADA retaliation/covered conduct outside workers’ compensation proceedings)
Carreras v. Sajo, Garcia & Partners, 596 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2010) (ADA retaliation elements and framework per First Circuit)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination cases)