323 F. Supp. 3d 309
D.R.I.2018Background
- Janice Washington worked for Honeywell from 1999 until termination on June 2, 2011; she had diagnosed hypertension, stress, and anxiety and took intermittent and short continuous FMLA leave in 2010–2011.
- Honeywell disciplined Washington for alleged excessive tardiness under its Site Attendance Policy (SAP) after she had used FMLA leave; it issued progressive warnings but accelerated discipline to a Final Warning while she was on leave and terminated her shortly after her intermittent FMLA expired.
- Washington contends some recorded tardiness reflected eCharge timekeeping errors, defective badge swipes, or approved medical appointments; she also alleges her supervisor made derogatory comments about her health.
- Honeywell contends Washington was tardy on numerous occasions and was terminated for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons (SAP violations); it disputes that Washington requested additional leave after her intermittent FMLA ended.
- Washington applied for SSDI more than a year after termination and was denied; she sued Honeywell for FMLA interference and retaliation and for state-law disability discrimination (RIFEPA, CRPD, RICRA).
- The court denied both parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, finding genuine disputes of material fact (time records, comparators, remarks, and whether Washington requested continued leave) requiring a jury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FMLA interference — did Honeywell deny FMLA benefits by terminating Washington soon after leave ended? | Washington says she sought continuation/accommodation or reasonably expected Honeywell to initiate follow-up under its policy; termination denied her FMLA rights. | Honeywell says Washington did not request additional leave, so no entitlement was denied. | Denied summary judgment to both sides — factual dispute on notice/request and Honeywell’s failure to engage precludes judgment. |
| FMLA retaliation — was termination motivated by protected FMLA use? | Temporal proximity, prior lack of discipline, and alleged derogatory comments show causal connection and pretext. | Honeywell proffers legitimate nondiscriminatory reason: repeated tardiness under SAP. | Denied summary judgment to both sides — prima facie shown; pretext and comparator/time-record disputes remain for jury. |
| State disability discrimination (RIFEPA/CRPD/RICRA) — did Honeywell discharge Washington because of disability or fail to accommodate? | Washington says she was disabled, qualified with/without accommodation, and was terminated because of disability (comments, timing, disparate discipline). | Honeywell says termination based on tardiness; SSDI application undermines claim of being able to work. | Denied summary judgment to both sides — plaintiff provided adequate explanation for SSDI filing; triable issues of pretext and comparators persist. |
| Admissibility/weight of time-record spreadsheet and eCharge accuracy | Washington compiled a summary spreadsheet of voluminous time records to show comparative tardiness and errors. | Honeywell challenges accuracy/misinterpretation of the spreadsheet. | Court did not rule on admissibility now but noted Rule 1006 allows summaries when accurate and sources available; factual disputes remain. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (establishes burden-shifting framework for discrimination/retaliation cases)
- Hodgens v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 144 F.3d 151 (1st Cir. 1998) (FMLA retaliation/intent analysis)
- Colburn v. Parker Hannifin/Nichols Portland Div., 429 F.3d 325 (1st Cir. 2005) (distinguishes FMLA interference from retaliation)
- Cleveland v. Policy Mgmt. Sys. Corp., 526 U.S. 795 (U.S. 1999) (reconciling apparent conflicts between ADA claims and SSDI statements)
- Rivera-Rivera v. Medina & Medina, Inc., 898 F.3d 77 (1st Cir. 2018) (summary judgment is inappropriate where material facts are genuinely disputed)