Pittman v. American Airlines, Inc.
692 F. App'x 549
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Anna Marie Pittman, an African-American employee with dyslexia and hearing issues, worked as a building cleaner; her position was outsourced in 2012 and she sought a hazardous-waste maintenance job made available to former cleaners.
- The maintenance position required use of an online database to read chemical cleanup instructions; applicants received classroom training and a six-month on-the-job shadowing period, followed by an oral 180-day competency test.
- Pittman complained during training that she was not being adequately prepared because she was a black woman; she did not request disability accommodations before the test and received notice of the test date.
- Pittman failed the 180-day test because she could not locate or explain online cleanup instructions; because her prior job was gone she was terminated, then placed in an alternate position after a union-employer settlement she signed.
- Pittman sued asserting race and ADA retaliation (among other claims she later abandoned); the district court granted summary judgment for the employer, and Pittman appealed only the race- and ADA-retaliation claims.
- The Tenth Circuit affirmed: Pittman failed to show she engaged in protected ADA accommodation requests before termination, failed to show causation for race retaliation, and failed to show the employer’s stated reasons were pretextual.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADA retaliation: whether Pittman engaged in protected activity (adequate request for accommodation) | Pittman says she gave prior doctor’s notes and requested oral exams/additional prep; later submitted a doctor’s note after failing | Employer says there was no timely, specific notice linking requests to a disability before termination | Held: No protected ADA activity — pre-termination notes/requests were not adequate or not shown to have been communicated to decisionmakers; post-termination note cannot create causation |
| Race retaliation: whether Pittman established causal connection between her complaint and termination | Pittman argues her complaints about inadequate preparation as a black woman were protected and temporally proximate to termination | Employer contends no causation; timing and memory gaps undermine any temporal inference | Held: No causal link — Pittman could not establish timing/memory to support inference of retaliation |
| Pretext for termination | Pittman points to union statements, emails, alleged sedation during test, employer’s failure to engage interactive ADA process, and settlement terms | Employer says termination resulted from outsourcing and failing the 180-day test; emails/comments post-failure don’t show pretext; no timely accommodation request triggered interactive process | Held: No pretext — record supports legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons and plaintiff failed to raise genuine dispute |
| Waiver/settlement effect | Pittman argued settlement was coercive/retaliatory or insufficient to waive claims | Employer relied on settlement and placement as resolution of job loss | Held: District court found settlement did not bar claims, but on merits summary judgment still affirmed; panel rejects claim that settlement was retaliatory |
Key Cases Cited
- Smothers v. Solvay Chems., Inc., 740 F.3d 530 (10th Cir. 2014) (standard of review for summary judgment and burden-shifting framework)
- Foster v. Mountain Coal Co., 830 F.3d 1178 (10th Cir. 2016) (ADA retaliation; request for accommodation can constitute protected activity)
- Bennett v. Windstream Commc’ns, Inc., 792 F.3d 1261 (10th Cir. 2015) (how a plaintiff may show pretext)
- Twigg v. Hawker Beechcraft Corp., 659 F.3d 987 (10th Cir. 2011) (elements of prima facie retaliation under § 1981)
- Jones v. U.P.S., Inc., 502 F.3d 1176 (10th Cir. 2007) (employer must know of protected activity for retaliation claim)
- Robertson v. Las Animas Cty. Sheriff's Dept., 500 F.3d 1185 (10th Cir. 2007) (employer knowledge of disability facts can substitute for explicit accommodation request)
- Kilcrease v. Domenico Transp. Co., 828 F.3d 1214 (10th Cir. 2016) (protected activity after an adverse action cannot establish causation)
- Dewitt v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 845 F.3d 1299 (10th Cir. 2017) (employer’s duty to engage in the interactive ADA process is triggered only after adequate request)