957 F.3d 54
1st Cir.2020Background
- Kirstie Trahan, an Army veteran with diagnosed PTSD, worked as a Wayfair sales-and-service consultant in an open-plan call center requiring close teamwork.
- During training in September 2017 she had conflicts with co-workers (notably Ireland and McDonald); on Sept. 20 she called colleagues "bitches," threw her headset, slammed a phone, and later had PTSD flashbacks.
- Management investigated, suspended her, and then terminated her for violating Wayfair's neutral Conduct Rules. Trahan left a voicemail disclosing her PTSD after the suspension but before the termination.
- Trahan sued under the ADA (and Maine law) for discriminatory discharge and failure to accommodate (requested desk reassignment and work-from-home). The district court granted summary judgment for Wayfair.
- Trahan appealed only the ADA claims to the First Circuit, which affirmed summary judgment for Wayfair.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discriminatory discharge | Trahan: termination was pretext for disability discrimination; she was treated more harshly than nondisabled employees | Wayfair: fired Trahan for clear violation of neutrally applied Conduct Rules; legitimate nondiscriminatory reason | Court: Affirmed for Wayfair — misconduct was fireable, comparator evidence insufficient to show pretext or discriminatory intent |
| Failure to accommodate | Trahan: she requested reassignment and work-from-home which would have allowed her to perform essential functions | Wayfair: requests came only after misconduct (too late), reassignment would not eliminate unpredictable triggers, and WFH was not available/feasible at the time | Court: Affirmed for Wayfair — requests were untimely or unreasonable; no interactive-process failure that would have produced a reasonable accommodation |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (established burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Raytheon Co. v. Hernandez, 540 U.S. 44 (neutral, clearly applied policies satisfy employer's production burden)
- U.S. Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391 (failure to accommodate is a form of disability discrimination)
- Jones v. Nationwide Life Ins. Co., 696 F.3d 78 (timing of accommodation request can make it "too little, too late")
- DeWitt v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 845 F.3d 1299 (post-misconduct accommodation requests do not oblige employer to excuse past misconduct)
- Gillen v. Fallon Ambul. Serv., Inc., 283 F.3d 11 (prima facie presumption in discrimination framework)
- Ray v. Ropes & Gray LLP, 799 F.3d 99 (comparator evidence must closely resemble plaintiff's conduct)
- Perkins v. Brigham & Women's Hosp., 78 F.3d 747 (comparators must be similar in relevant respects)
- Kelley v. Corr. Med. Servs., Inc., 707 F.3d 108 (context of repeated disability-based conflict can support inference of discriminatory motive)
- Calero-Cerezo v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 355 F.3d 6 (reasonableness of accommodations is fact-specific)