253 F. Supp. 3d 312
D.D.C.2017Background
- Malcolm Marks, a WWL delivery helper with right-arm paralysis from a 2006 shooting, obtained a motorized hand truck through a state program and used it at work beginning in 2012.
- Marks requested Company permission to secure/charge the device at WWL in 2011; HR asked for medical documentation and an interactive process occurred intermittently.
- In 2013 Marks reported missing handrails at two customer sites and filed an OSHA complaint (in his driver’s name) after Wonderland refused to install a rail; Wonderland later dropped WWL’s account.
- Marks’s motorized hand truck failed on March 18, 2014; WWL employees consulted HR and legal and asked Marks for medical documentation before authorizing repairs or determining cost responsibility.
- WWL approved a technician to repair the cart within about 17 days (by early April 2014); Marks waited until May 12 to have it repaired privately, paid $424.29, then was reimbursed in full after submitting updated medical documentation on July 16, 2014.
- Procedurally, Marks sued under the ADA for failure to accommodate and retaliation; parties cross-moved for summary judgment. The Court denied Marks’s motion to strike two declarations, ordered his counsel to show cause re: Rule 11, and granted WWL summary judgment on both ADA claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to Strike / evidentiary challenges | Declarations by HR witnesses lack personal knowledge and are sham affidavits contradicting depositions | Declarations are based on personal knowledge and are consistent with depositions | Motion to Strike denied; counsel ordered to show cause re: Rule 11 for filings lacking factual basis |
| Failure to accommodate (delay in repair/approval) | WWL’s delay and initial refusal to allow an on-site technician denied a reasonable accommodation for Marks’s disability | WWL sought legal/HR guidance, engaged in interactive process, approved technician within ~17 days and later reimbursed repairs | Summary judgment for WWL: 17-day delay (and brief lag in reimbursement) was not an unreasonable denial of accommodation as a matter of law |
| Retaliation (after OSHA complaints re: handrails) | Delay/handling of the hand-truck repairs was retaliatory for Marks’s OSHA safety complaint(s) | OSHA complaints were safety (OSHA) matters, not ADA-protected activity; no causal link or adverse action connected to complaints | Summary judgment for WWL: OSHA complaints were not ADA-protected activity and there is no evidence of causation; retaliation claim fails |
| Sanctions / counsel conduct | N/A (Marks moved to strike) | WWL argued opposing filings misrepresented the record and lacked reasonable factual inquiry | Court denied the strike motion but ordered Marks’s counsel to show cause why Rule 11 sanctions should not be imposed |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary-judgment standard)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (movant’s burden on summary judgment)
- Jackson v. Finnegan, 101 F.3d 145 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (importance of Local Rule 7(h) compliance)
- Mastro v. PEPCO, 447 F.3d 843 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (nonmovant evidence to be credited at summary judgment)
- Feist v. Louisiana Dep’t of Justice, 730 F.3d 450 (5th Cir. 2013) (elements of failure-to-accommodate claim)
- Valle-Arce v. Puerto Rico Ports Auth., 651 F.3d 190 (1st Cir. 2011) (delay can constitute denial of accommodation in some circumstances)
- Clark Cty. Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268 (temporal proximity limits for inferring causation in retaliation claims)