Punt v. Kelly Services, 862 F.3d 1040

Background

Kristin Punt was a temporary, at-will employee of Kelly Services assigned as receptionist at GE from Oct 24–Dec 5, 2011; the job required physical presence during business hours.
While on assignment Punt underwent diagnostic testing and was diagnosed with breast cancer; she informed Kelly/GE of the diagnosis and a family history of breast cancer.
Punt missed multiple days, arrived late and left early on several occasions for medical appointments; on Dec 5 she emailed Kelly saying she would not come to work that week and would need additional time off for tests and radiation.
GE notified Kelly that it needed reliable coverage and Kelly terminated Punt’s assignment; Punt did not seek further assignments from Kelly afterward.
Punt sued GE and Kelly under the ADA (failure-to-accommodate/disparate treatment) and GINA; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants and denied Punt’s motion to compel broad discovery.
The Tenth Circuit affirmed: it upheld the magistrate judge’s denial of the overbroad discovery request and affirmed summary judgment on the ADA and GINA claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Magistrate judge’s denial of broad discovery request	Punt argued the judge should have narrowed the request sua sponte and compelled appropriately limited discovery	Kelly argued the request was overly broad, unduly burdensome, and sought irrelevant/confidential data	Affirmed: denial not an abuse of discretion; judge not required to reframe counsel’s request and request was unduly burdensome
Type of ADA claim (failure-to-accommodate vs disparate treatment)	Punt pleaded failure-to-accommodate and litigated it as such	Defendants argued the complaint should be treated as disparate-treatment	The court treated the complaint as a failure-to-accommodate claim because pleadings and discovery focused on accommodation issues
Whether Punt requested a plausibly reasonable accommodation (leave)	Punt contended her email requesting a week off and additional time for treatment was a reasonable accommodation	Defendants contended physical presence was an essential job function and the requested open-ended leave was vague and unreasonable	Held: request was not plausibly reasonable as a matter of law; summary judgment for defendants on ADA claim
GINA claim based on family history disclosure	Punt argued termination was tied to her family history/genetic information and treatment needs	Defendants argued termination was due to attendance/unreliability; no evidence linking decision to genetic information	Held: summary judgment affirmed—Plaintiff’s evidence insufficient to show decision based on genetic information or that defendants’ stated reason was pretextual

Key Cases Cited

Peterson v. Martinez, 707 F.3d 1197 (10th Cir.) (standard of review for summary judgment)
Martinez v. Schock Transfer & Warehouse Co., 789 F.2d 848 (10th Cir.) (abuse-of-discretion review for discovery rulings)
United States v. Shumway, 112 F.3d 1413 (10th Cir.) (definition of abuse of discretion)
Shorter v. ICG Holdings, Inc., 188 F.3d 1204 (10th Cir.) (direct vs. circumstantial evidence in discrimination cases)
Higgins v. New Balance Athletic Shoes, Inc., 194 F.3d 252 (1st Cir.) (failure-to-accommodate does not require proof of employer discriminatory intent)
Smith v. Midland Brake, Inc., 180 F.3d 1154 (10th Cir.) (modified burden-shifting framework for failure-to-accommodate claims)
Monette v. Elec. Data Sys. Corp., 90 F.3d 1173 (6th Cir.) (discussion of evidence types in accommodation claims)
Sanchez v. Vilsack, 695 F.3d 1174 (10th Cir.) (elements of prima facie failure-to-accommodate)
Mason v. Avaya Commc’ns, Inc., 357 F.3d 1114 (10th Cir.) (employee request to be relieved of essential functions is unreasonable as a matter of law)
Cisneros v. Wilson, 226 F.3d 1113 (10th Cir.) (requirements for leave as a reasonable accommodation)
Jackson v. Veterans Admin., 22 F.3d 277 (11th Cir.) (importance of consistent reporting for temporary employees)