Menninger v. PPD Development, L.P., 145 F.4th 126

Dr. Lisa Menninger, Executive Director for Laboratory Operations at PPD Development, L.P. (PPD), disclosed a social anxiety disorder and requested disability accommodations when her job duties were expanded to include more public-facing responsibilities.
Menninger provided medical documentation outlining the need to limit public speaking and in-person interactions, requesting specific workplace accommodations.
PPD accommodated some requests but refused others, then allegedly pressured Menninger to leave or accept an exit package, documented supposed performance deficiencies, and ultimately terminated her.
Menninger developed depression as a result of the alleged treatment, exhausted her medical leave, and was terminated by PPD.
Menninger sued PPD under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Massachusetts anti-discrimination law for failure to provide reasonable accommodations, discrimination, and retaliation.
A jury found for Menninger, awarding her over $24 million, including punitive damages. PPD appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, jury instructions, and the punitive damages award.

Issue	Plaintiff’s Argument	Defendant’s Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for discrimination claims	PPD did not accommodate her disability, and retaliated unlawfully.	No reasonable jury could find she could perform essential functions; insufficient evidence for adverse action due to disability.	Arguments waived due to non-specific Rule 50(a) motion; not considered on appeal.
Jury instruction regarding “reader” accommodation	The instruction tracked ADA text, and was not misleading or outcome-determinative.	The “reader” example was misleading, suggesting Menninger’s requested accommodation was per se reasonable.	Objection not preserved; no plain error in the instruction’s context.
Sufficiency of evidence for punitive damages	PPD acted with malice or reckless indifference to rights under the ADA/state law.	No evidence of malice or reckless indifference; acted in good faith/legal uncertainty.	Jury could reasonably infer malicious/reckless conduct; punitive damages affirmed.
Impact of failing to engage in “interactive process”	Disparate-treatment, retaliation, and pretext evidence supported punitive damages despite partial SJ on interactive process.	Partial SJ on interactive process claim precludes showing of malice/recklessness.	Summary judgment ruling did not find good faith overall; punitive damages allowed.

Ortiz-Martínez v. Fresenius Health Partners, PR, LLC, 853 F.3d 599 (1st Cir. 2017) (ADA’s mandate to eliminate workplace disability discrimination)
Franchina v. City of Providence, 881 F.3d 32 (1st Cir. 2018) (appellate deference to jury’s factual determinations)
Kolstad v. Am. Dental Ass’n, 527 U.S. 526 (1999) (standard for punitive damages: discriminatory intent with knowledge of potential illegality)
Tobin v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 553 F.3d 121 (1st Cir. 2009) (punitive damages under ADA require malicious or reckless disregard for employee rights)
Casillas-Díaz v. Palau, 463 F.3d 77 (1st Cir. 2006) (jury’s factual findings reviewed in light most favorable to verdict)
Passantino v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Prods., Inc., 212 F.3d 493 (9th Cir. 2000) (punitive damages where employer fabricates evidence and attempts to cover up discrimination)