953 F.3d 165
1st Cir.2020Background
- Carlos Melo was a Somerville police officer for 19 years and lost almost all vision in his left eye after a 2002 injury; he continued to serve and passed firearm qualifications for years.
- In 2015 a supervisor reported that Melo smelled of marijuana; Melo agreed to a fitness-for-duty exam instead of a drug test.
- Dr. Al Rielly found Melo essentially monocular and concluded he was unfit because monocular vision would prevent safe high-speed pursuit driving; Melo was placed on leave and involuntarily retired after a Board and PERAC process.
- A three-physician PERAC panel produced split findings: two doctors said Melo’s vision made him unfit; the third said monocular individuals often compensate and cited Melo’s motorcycle use, but disqualified him on marijuana grounds.
- Melo sued under the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Massachusetts discrimination law; the district court granted summary judgment for the City, concluding Melo was not a "qualified individual" because he could not perform the essential function of pursuit driving.
- The First Circuit vacated summary judgment, holding there are triable issues whether pursuit driving is an essential function for Melo’s position and whether Melo can safely perform it or be reasonably accommodated; the case was remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pursuit driving is an "essential function" of Melo's Somerville position | Pursuit driving is not an essential function for Melo (station officer); Somerville’s practice discourages pursuits and rarely requires them | HRD manual lists high-speed driving as essential; public-safety standards support disqualification | Triable issue: record evidence could support that pursuit driving is not essential for Melo's incumbent role |
| Whether Mass HRD initial-hire vision standards automatically disqualify incumbents | HRD initial-hire standards do not necessarily apply to long‑service incumbents; Somerville has no retention vision testing and Melo performed for years | City relies on HRD list and Carleton deference to HRD in public-safety contexts | Triable issue: HRD initial-hire standards do not conclusively govern retention/disqualification here |
| Whether medical reports conclusively show Melo cannot safely engage in pursuit driving | Melo points to a dissenting PERAC physician who considered on-the-job compensations (e.g., motorcycle use) and years without incident | City relies on Rielly and two PERAC doctors who found monocular vision prevents safe pursuit driving | Triable issue: conflicting competent medical opinions create a jury question about Melo’s ability to perform pursuit driving |
| Whether employer needed to consider accommodation (light duty) | Melo requested light-duty accommodation excluding pursuits; employer did not meaningfully discuss it | City says no accommodation needed because Melo was not qualified | Held: Because triable issues exist on essential function and ability, accommodation analysis cannot be resolved on summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Gillen v. Fallon Ambulance Serv., Inc., 283 F.3d 11 (1st Cir. 2002) (written job descriptions are not always dispositive on essential functions)
- Carleton v. Commonwealth, 858 N.E.2d 258 (Mass. 2006) (courts should defer to HRD medical classifications in public-safety contexts)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment: credibility and weighing evidence are jury functions)
- Ward v. Mass. Health Research Inst., Inc., 209 F.3d 29 (1st Cir. 2000) (determination of essential functions can be a fact-intensive inquiry)
- Rorrer v. City of Stow, 743 F.3d 1025 (6th Cir. 2014) (triable issue where it was unclear whether an employer adopted a guideline listing a function as essential)
- Keith v. Cty. of Oakland, 703 F.3d 918 (6th Cir. 2013) (genuine issue of fact can exist on a plaintiff’s ability to perform job despite impairment)