Miceli v. JetBlue Airways Corp.
914 F.3d 73
1st Cir.2019Background
- Miceli worked as a JetBlue inflight crewmember and was diagnosed with PTSD and depression; she took and received intermittent FMLA leave through JetBlue’s MetLife administrator.
- JetBlue’s attendance policy assigns "UNA" (unavailable for assignment) codes and dependability points for unexcused absences; 12 points triggers review and possible termination.
- Miceli accrued UNA points (including absences she contends were related to her disabilities or miscoded), reached 12 points, was suspended shortly after filing an MCAD complaint, and was terminated for excessive UNAs.
- Miceli sued in state court under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B for handicap discrimination and retaliation; JetBlue removed the case to federal court.
- The district court granted JetBlue summary judgment, emphasizing Miceli’s failure to use JetBlue’s internal procedures to challenge absences or request specific accommodations; Miceli’s motion to add an FMLA claim was denied as untimely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did JetBlue unlawfully discharge Miceli because of her handicap (Chapter 151B)? | Miceli says her absences were disability-related or miscoded and JetBlue failed to accommodate attendance policy. | JetBlue says termination followed a neutral, uniformly applied attendance policy after Miceli accrued 12 UNA points. | Affirmed: No genuine dispute that JetBlue’s neutral policy, properly applied, justified termination; Miceli did not show she made a specific accommodation request or that policy was applied disparately. |
| Was Miceli terminated in retaliation for filing an MCAD complaint? | Miceli relies on temporal proximity (suspension/termination after her MCAD filing). | JetBlue points to preexisting performance/attendance problems predating the MCAD filing. | Affirmed: Temporal proximity insufficient where adverse action stemmed from problems that predated protected activity. |
| Did Miceli sufficiently plead or pursue an accommodation request as required by law? | Miceli points to progressive-guidance meetings, emails, and FMLA requests as notice of need for accommodation. | JetBlue says Miceli never used HR accommodation channels or made a reasonably specific accommodation request linking disability to an accommodation. | Affirmed: Requests were not sufficiently specific or routed through designated processes to oblige employer to engage in interactive accommodation. |
| Was denial of leave to amend to add an FMLA claim an abuse of discretion? | Miceli argued discovery revealed the specific UNA date prompting an FMLA claim. | JetBlue argued Miceli knew the miscoding allegations from the start; amendment was untimely and prejudicial. | Affirmed: District court did not abuse discretion—plaintiff lacked diligence and good cause to amend after the scheduling deadline. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (prima facie / burden-shifting framework in discrimination cases)
- Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc. v. MCAD, 808 N.E.2d 257 (Mass. 2004) (when employee’s communications can constitute an unmistakable request for accommodation)
- Gannon v. City of Boston, 73 N.E.3d 748 (Mass. 2017) (applying McDonnell Douglas framework under Chapter 151B)
- Kouvchinov v. Parametric Tech. Corp., 537 F.3d 62 (1st Cir. 2008) (summary-judgment view of disputed facts)
- Pearson v. Mass. Bay Transp. Auth., 723 F.3d 36 (1st Cir. 2013) (retaliation—problems predating protected activity undercut causation inference)
- Mole v. University of Massachusetts, 814 N.E.2d 329 (Mass. 2004) (elements of retaliation claim under Chapter 151B)