Sepulveda-Vargas v. Caribbean Restaurants, LLC, 888 F.3d 549

Background

Sepúlveda, a former Burger King assistant manager employed by Caribbean Restaurants, was assaulted in 2011 and diagnosed with PTSD and major depressive disorder.
He requested a permanent fixed work schedule (no rotating shifts) and reassignment to a lower-crime location as ADA accommodations; Caribbean initially granted a temporary fixed schedule but later returned him to rotating shifts.
Sepúlveda resigned in 2013 and sued under the ADA for (1) failure to reasonably accommodate and (2) retaliation/hostile work environment; Puerto Rico law claims were dismissed without prejudice below.
The district court granted summary judgment for Caribbean, finding (a) rotating-shift ability was an essential function of the assistant manager job and (b) the alleged retaliatory acts were not materially adverse or pervasive.
The First Circuit reviewed summary judgment de novo and affirmed the district court's dismissal of Sepúlveda’s ADA claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Sepúlveda was a "qualified individual" under the ADA given his requested permanent fixed schedule	Sepúlveda: rotating shifts are not essential; permanent fixed scheduling was a reasonable accommodation that would allow him to perform essential functions	Caribbean: ability to work rotating shifts is essential for equal distribution of managerial coverage; job postings and application require scheduling flexibility	Held: Rotating-shift ability is an essential function; Sepúlveda was not a qualified individual for the position without the accommodation, so failure-to-accommodate claim fails
Whether Caribbean’s temporary grant of accommodation means rotating shifts were non-essential	Sepúlveda: granting the accommodation shows rotating shifts were non-essential	Caribbean: temporary accommodation does not concede non-essentiality and employers should not be penalized for exceeding ADA obligations	Held: Temporary accommodations do not negate an employer's position that a function is essential; Phelps logic applies, employer not punished for going beyond ADA
Whether Sepúlveda proved a prima facie ADA retaliation claim based on discrete acts (reprimands, insults, scheduling changes, forcing paid leave, being told to stay late, humiliation)	Sepúlveda: each incident (and cumulatively) was materially adverse and would deter a reasonable employee from making an ADA complaint	Caribbean: incidents were minor, routine supervisory actions, legitimate health/safety compliance, or inadequately supported and therefore not materially adverse	Held: Individual incidents were not materially adverse; collectively they did not amount to a severe or pervasive hostile work environment—retaliation claim fails
Whether there was an adverse employment action when Caribbean placed Sepúlveda on paid leave for an expired health certificate	Sepúlveda: placement on paid leave was retaliatory and adverse	Caribbean: leave was required by health regulations and non-punitive; employer compliance with safety rules justified action	Held: Placement on paid vacation for health-certificate reasons was not materially adverse given regulatory context

Key Cases Cited

Medina–Rivera v. MVM, Inc., 713 F.3d 132 (1st Cir. 2013) (courts must follow substantively correct law even when sympathy exists)
Lang v. Wal-Mart Stores E., L.P., 813 F.3d 447 (1st Cir. 2016) (definition of "qualified individual" under ADA)
Gillen v. Fallon Ambulance Serv., Inc., 283 F.3d 11 (1st Cir. 2002) (essential-function inquiry is fact-specific; courts defer to employer judgments)
Kvorjak v. Maine, 259 F.3d 48 (1st Cir. 2001) (essential functions may include idiosyncratic job characteristics)
Calero-Cerezo v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 355 F.3d 6 (1st Cir. 2004) (scheduling flexibility can be essential)
Laurin v. Providence Hosp., 150 F.3d 52 (1st Cir. 1998) (rotating shifts held essential for hospital staffing)
Phelps v. Optima Health, Inc., 251 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 2001) (employers should not be penalized for providing accommodations beyond ADA requirements)
Valle-Arce v. P.R. Ports Auth., 651 F.3d 190 (1st Cir. 2011) (retaliation claims may succeed even if discrimination claim fails)
Freadman v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 484 F.3d 91 (1st Cir. 2007) (elements of prima facie retaliation)
Carmona-Rivera v. Puerto Rico, 464 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 2006) (retaliation requires materially adverse action under Burlington)
Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (retaliation standard: materially adverse actions deter reasonable employees)
Colón-Fontánez v. Municipality of San Juan, 660 F.3d 17 (1st Cir. 2011) (petty slights and isolated incidents do not ordinarily establish adverse action)