VALLE-ARCE v. Puerto Rico Ports Authority
651 F.3d 190
| 1st Cir. | 2011Background
- Valle-Arce, disabled with chronic fatigue syndrome and related conditions, worked for the Puerto Rico Ports Authority from 1990 until her 2007 termination.
- Since 2000 Valle had requested workplace accommodations, including a later start time; a 2003 informal flexible schedule existed but was not written.
- In 2005, new supervisor Gregory began monitoring attendance, deleting office amenities Valle previously had, and demanding more documentation for accommodations.
- Valle alleges Gregory harassed her about attendance, pressured documentation, and caused stress that aggravated her medical condition, leading to extended leaves in 2005.
- Valle sought formal accommodations in 2006 and 2007; the Ports Authority delayed action and ultimately granted some changes only after EEOC filing.
- Valle was terminated in July 2007 for using another employee’s file in an internal appeal and for using agency resources for a personal matter.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Valle qualified for ADA protection with accommodations. | Valle credibly showed she could attend with flexible scheduling. | Absences rendered Valle unqualified; attendance is essential. | Judgment for Ports reversed; jury could find Valle qualified with accommodation. |
| Whether the Ports Authority denied Valle a reasonable accommodation. | Agency delayed and constrained process, deviating from policy, denying effective accommodations. | Accommodation eventually granted; no denial under law. | Material questions of fact remain; jury could find denial or delayed accommodation. |
| Whether Gregory's conduct constitutes unlawful harassment or retaliatory conduct. | Harassment and disciplinary actions followed Valle’s accommodation requests and complaints. | Discipline based on conduct; not shown as retaliation. | Harassment/retaliation claims viable; district court erred in dismissing them at trial. |
| Whether Valle established a causal link between protected activity and adverse action. | Timing and pattern support retaliation inference. | No direct causal link shown. | Evidence could support retaliation claim; remand appropriate. |
| Whether Valle's Law 80 claim was properly supported. | Valle testified to pre-termination compensation; should be adequate. | Law 80 damages require specific proof; record insufficient. | Remand to determine Law 80 damages; vacate judgment on this claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carroll v. Xerox Corp., 294 F.3d 231 (1st Cir. 2002) (elements of a reasonable accommodation claim)
- Tobin v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 433 F.3d 100 (1st Cir. 2005) (reasonable accommodation burden and qualification)
- Freadman v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 484 F.3d 91 (1st Cir. 2007) (protected conduct includes accommodation requests)
- Calero-Cerezo v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 355 F.3d 6 (1st Cir. 2004) (unreasonable delay can constitute denial of accommodation)
- Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (U.S. 2006) (retaliation standards include materially adverse actions)
- Rios-Jimenez v. Principi, 520 F.3d 31 (1st Cir. 2008) (attendance as an essential job function)
- Andrade v. Jamestown Hous. Auth., 82 F.3d 1179 (1st Cir. 1996) (scope of employment and standards in discrimination cases)
- Murray v. Ross-Dove Co., 5 F.3d 573 (1st Cir. 1993) (standards for evaluating retaliation and discrimination claims)