Pena v. Honeywell International, Inc.
923 F.3d 18
1st Cir.2019Background
- Pena worked at Honeywell from ~2008 until she stopped appearing for work on March 8, 2013; Honeywell terminated her for job abandonment on June 17, 2013 after she used all medical leave.
- Beginning in 2012 Honeywell implemented mandatory cross-training and rotation into the continuously-running molding department; Pena objected to working in molding because it exacerbated anxiety/depression.
- Pena submitted medical notes from Dr. Greer requesting reassignment away from molding; Honeywell repeatedly requested more specific documentation to assess a reasonable-accommodation request; communications thereafter focused on her molding-room restriction.
- Pena retained counsel early in the post-March 8 communications; she never returned to work and later applied for SSDI on September 20, 2013, stating under penalty of perjury that she became unable to work as of March 8, 2013 and remained disabled.
- An ALJ later approved SSDI benefits, finding somatoform disorder and total disability as of March 8, 2013; Pena sued Honeywell under the ADA and Rhode Island disability and retaliation laws seeking discrimination and failure-to-accommodate relief.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Honeywell, concluding Pena failed to reconcile her SSDI sworn statements with her ADA claim under Cleveland; the First Circuit affirmed as to discrimination and accommodation, and affirmed dismissal of retaliation claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pena can prove termination "on the basis of disability" under the ADA given her SSDI application stating total disability as of March 8, 2013 | Pena: Cleveland permits reconciliation; differences between SSDI and ADA standards suffice; she would have said she needed accommodations if asked | Honeywell: Pena's sworn SSDI statements and deposition admissions that she was totally disabled are inconsistent with being a "qualified individual" able to work with accommodations | Court: Affirmed summary judgment for Honeywell — under Cleveland Pena failed to offer a sufficient, reasoned explanation to reconcile SSDI sworn statements with ADA claim |
| Failure-to-accommodate claim (was Pena a "qualified individual") | Pena: She could perform job functions outside molding with accommodation; medical notes support selective restriction | Honeywell: Same inconsistency problem; deposition and SSDI statements show inability to work | Held: Summary judgment for Honeywell — Pena did not produce sufficient evidence she was a qualified individual |
| Retaliation for internal complaints (timing/causation) | Pena: Complaints about break times and refusal to work in molding were protected and causally connected to termination | Honeywell: Termination was for job abandonment after extended absence; temporal gap and record undermine causation | Held: Summary judgment for Honeywell — temporal proximity insufficient and record shows legitimate, non-pretextual reason (job abandonment) |
| Admissibility/weight of later affidavit contradicting deposition and SSDI statements | Pena: Late affidavit explains that she applied for SSDI only after accommodations were denied and that she could have worked with accommodation | Honeywell: A later affidavit cannot be used to create a genuine issue contradicting prior sworn deposition without satisfactory explanation | Held: Court declined to credit the contradictory affidavit as sufficient to defeat summary judgment under Cleveland and deposition-law precedents |
Key Cases Cited
- Cleveland v. Policy Mgmt. Sys. Corp., 526 U.S. 795 (1999) (plaintiff must provide a reasoned explanation reconciling SSDI sworn statements of total disability with an ADA claim that she could work with accommodation)
- DeCaro v. Hasbro, Inc., 580 F.3d 55 (1st Cir. 2009) (receipt of SSDI benefits is not automatically fatal but may be admission of inability to perform essential functions; plaintiff must explain)
- Sullivan v. Raytheon Co., 262 F.3d 41 (1st Cir. 2001) (summary judgment appropriate where plaintiff offers no evidence explaining inconsistency between SSDI statements and ADA claim)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment standard: burden on nonmovant to show genuine factual dispute)