Marquez v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, 1:19-cv-24970

Background:

Marquez worked for Costco since 1995; in March–April 2015 she used her manager’s login to approve changes to her own timecard, violating Costco policy.
Costco suspended Marquez (late March/early April 2015) and demoted her from Payroll Clerk (service clerk) to Front End Assistant (service assistant).
From April 2015 through January 2016 Marquez submitted multiple medical notes imposing lifting and bending restrictions (generally 10–20 lb limits) and took extended job-protected leave; Costco allowed extended leaves and reinstated her briefly in November 2015.
Marquez resigned effective January 28, 2016 and filed an EEOC charge on April 26, 2016 alleging age and disability discrimination and failure to accommodate; she claims a Sales Auditor vacancy (a higher-level position) was given to a younger employee.
Costco’s written job descriptions show essential duties (frequent lifting up to 50–75 lb) that exceeded Marquez’s restrictions; Marquez did not apply for posted openings and did not identify any posted position she could perform without altering essential functions.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of suspension/demotion claims	Marquez contends the acts were part of a continuing violation and thus timely.	Costco argues suspension and demotion were discrete acts and the EEOC charge was filed after the 300‑day period.	Court: Suspension and demotion are discrete acts; claims arising before July 1, 2015 are time‑barred.
Constructive discharge	Marquez says working conditions and loss of income forced her to resign.	Costco says leave and temporary restrictions do not create objectively intolerable conditions.	Court: No pervasive, intolerable conduct; constructive discharge fails.
Age discrimination (ADEA)	Marquez argues demotion and failure to reassign reflect age bias and a younger employee got the Sales Auditor role.	Costco points to legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for demotion and that replacement was only two years younger; Marquez didn’t apply for openings.	Court: ADEA claims time‑barred; on the merits plaintiff failed prima facie (no ‘substantially younger’ replacement) and employer offered legitimate reason (policy violation).
Failure to accommodate / disability discrimination (ADA)	Marquez contends Costco should have reassigned or modified duties (e.g., Sales Auditor, lighter work) instead of extended leave.	Costco says it provided reasonable accommodation (extended leave), Marquez’s restrictions prevented performance of essential functions, and reassignment to a promotion is not required.	Court: Leave was a reasonable accommodation; employer not required to eliminate or reallocate essential lifting duties or provide a promotion; failure‑to‑accommodate and ADA discrimination claims fail.

Key Cases Cited

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standards)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden‑shifting for circumstantial discrimination)
Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (discrete acts doctrine / statute of limitations)
U.S. Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391 (limits on reassignment as reasonable accommodation)
Lucas v. W.W. Grainger, Inc., 257 F.3d 1249 (employer job descriptions and essential functions)
U.S. EEOC v. St. Joseph’s Hosp., Inc., 842 F.3d 1333 (employer need not reassign without competition)
Holly v. Clairson Indus., LLC, 492 F.3d 1247 (qualified individual must perform essential functions)
Duckett v. Dunlop Tire Co., 120 F.3d 1222 (limits on indefinite or extended leave as reasonable accommodation)
Hipp v. Liberty Nat. Life Ins. Co., 252 F.3d 1208 (constructive discharge standards; objective and pervasive conduct required)
Feliciano v. City of Miami Beach, 707 F.3d 1244 (summary judgment credibility and view of facts in favor of nonmovant)