Mancini v. City of Providence
909 F.3d 32
| 1st Cir. | 2018Background
- Mancini, a Providence police sergeant, injured his knee in November 2010, underwent surgery, was placed on injured-on-duty (IOD) and light duty, and later removed from light duty.
- He applied for accidental disability retirement in September 2011; the application was denied in June 2012 after independent medical exams.
- Mancini took the 2012 lieutenant promotional exam: scores from written exam, seniority, education, and discretionary service points (up to 5 from the Chief) determined ranking; Mancini received 0 service points and finished seventh while five promotions were available.
- Mancini sued the City under the ADA and related Rhode Island laws alleging disability discrimination (failure to promote based on disability via denial of service points).
- At summary judgment the district court found Mancini failed to prove he was disabled under the ADA; the court granted the City judgment on federal and parallel state claims.
- On appeal the First Circuit affirmed: held (1) a lay jury could find a knee injury is an impairment without medical proof, but (2) Mancini presented only conclusory evidence that the injury substantially limited major life activities, and (3) his "regarded-as" theory was not preserved in the district court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mancini had a cognizable physical impairment under the ADA | Mancini argued his knee injury (surgery, IOD status) constituted a physical impairment without needing medical records | City argued Mancini produced no medical evidence and therefore failed to show an impairment | Court: A knee injury can be an impairment that a lay jury could recognize without medical proof; medical evidence not strictly required here |
| Whether the impairment substantially limited a major life activity | Mancini claimed his knee injury substantially limited standing, walking, bending | City argued Mancini offered only conclusory statements and no evidence of substantial limitation | Court: Mancini’s conclusory assertions were insufficient; he failed to create a genuine fact issue on "substantially limits" and summary judgment was proper |
| Whether Mancini had a "record of" disability | Mancini relied on prior IOD status and disability application as proof of a record of disability | City stressed the disability application was denied and IOD status did not establish substantial limitation | Court: Record evidence was inadequate to show a prior disability that substantially limited major life activities; claim failed |
| Whether Mancini could proceed under the "regarded-as" prong of the ADA | On appeal Mancini argued the City regarded him as disabled | City noted Mancini did not assert a regarded-as claim in district court | Court: "Regarded-as" theory was not timely or adequately presented below and is therefore unpreserved; appellate review denied |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishing burden-shifting framework for indirect-evidence discrimination claims)
- Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (prior Supreme Court standard on "major life activities" and permanence, later modified by the ADAAA)
- Katz v. City Metal Co., 87 F.3d 26 (1st Cir.) (lay juries can sometimes find impairments like heart attacks without expert testimony)
- Ramos-Echevarría v. Pichis, 659 F.3d 182 (1st Cir.) (discussing ADA definitions and distinctions among actual, record-of, and regarded-as disabilities)
- Ahern v. Shinseki, 629 F.3d 49 (1st Cir.) (summary judgment standard and requirement that nonmoving party present specific facts)