Delgado-Echevarria v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP
2017 WL 1593474, 856 F.3d 119 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An extended leave of absence, especially one following prior significant leave, may not constitute a 'reasonable accommodation' under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) if the employee fails to adequately demonstrate both its effectiveness in enabling job performance and its facial reasonableness for the employer. Close temporal proximity between protected activity and an adverse employment action, while potentially establishing a prima facie case of retaliation, is insufficient to prove pretext when an employer provides legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for termination.
Facts:
- In 2001, AstraZeneca hired Taymari Delgado Echevvarría as a Pharmaceutical Sales Specialist and later promoted her to Hospital Specialist in 2009.
- In November 2010, Delgado sought treatment for depression and anxiety, and in late 2011, she learned she had a pituitary microadenoma, informing her supervisor, Maribel Martínez, of the tumor and biopsies.
- On December 12, 2011, Dr. Jorge A. Sánchez Cruz diagnosed Delgado with severe depression and extreme anxiety, recommending she refrain from working, prompting Delgado to apply for short-term disability (STD) benefits from AstraZeneca.
- AstraZeneca initially denied Delgado's STD request for lack of documentation, but after Dr. Sánchez provided additional paperwork estimating a five-month leave, AstraZeneca awarded her benefits retroactive to December 12, 2011, which were periodically extended.
- On March 11, 2012, AstraZeneca terminated Delgado's STD benefits due to inadequate documentation, and on March 16, Michael Cohran, a Senior Employment Practices Partner in HR, sent Delgado a letter instructing her to return to work by March 22, warning of presumed resignation if she failed to comply.
- Delgado did not return to work on March 22, and Cohran called her, pressuring her to resign and offering a severance package, which caused Delgado significant distress and a relapse of her condition.
- One week after Cohran's call, Dr. Sánchez submitted new documentation characterizing Delgado as 'severely ill,' leading AstraZeneca to extend her STD benefits until April 29, 2012.
- On May 17, 2012, Dr. Sánchez faxed additional documentation to AstraZeneca, indicating Delgado was 'unable to work at this time' and, in response to a question about the 'beginning and ending dates for the period of incapacity,' wrote '12 months'.
Procedural Posture:
- In February 2013, Taymari Delgado Echevvarría initiated an action against AstraZeneca Pharmaceutical LP and AstraZeneca LP in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico.
- Delgado alleged claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for disability discrimination, failure to reasonably accommodate, failure to engage in an interactive process, and retaliation, as well as claims under Puerto Rico Law 44, Article 1802, and Law 80.
- The district court entered summary judgment in AstraZeneca's favor on all of Delgado's claims.
- Delgado timely appealed the district court's entry of summary judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, where Delgado Echevvarría is the appellant and AstraZeneca Pharmaceutical LP and AstraZeneca LP are the appellees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
(1) Is a request for an additional twelve months of unpaid leave, following five months of prior leave, a 'reasonable accommodation' under the ADA when the employee struggles to show its effectiveness and facial reasonableness? (2) Can an employee establish an ADA retaliation claim based solely on temporal proximity when the employer offers legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for termination that the employee cannot sufficiently rebut as pretextual?
Opinions:
Majority - Thompson
No, a request for an additional twelve months of unpaid leave, following five months of prior leave, is not a reasonable accommodation under the ADA when the employee struggles to show its effectiveness and facial reasonableness, and no, an employee cannot establish an ADA retaliation claim based solely on temporal proximity when the employer offers legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for termination that the employee cannot sufficiently rebut as pretextual. The court assumed, without deciding, that Delgado was disabled under the ADA but focused its inquiry on whether she was a "qualified individual" capable of performing essential job functions with or without reasonable accommodation. Delgado conceded she could not work without accommodation, so the court assessed her request for a twelve-month leave extension. To prove a reasonable accommodation, Delgado had the burden to show (1) it would enable her to perform essential job functions, and (2) it was "facially reasonable" for AstraZeneca. Regarding effectiveness, while Dr. Sánchez's "12 months" entry could be arguably interpreted as an estimated return, the court found this a "meager attempt" to demonstrate effectiveness, particularly without supporting medical documentation. Nonetheless, viewing the evidence most favorably to Delgado, the court assumed this prong was met. The court concluded that Delgado failed to show the accommodation was facially reasonable. It highlighted the sheer length of the requested leave—an additional twelve months on top of the five months already taken—as inherently problematic. Citing various circuit court precedents, including Hwang v. Kan. State Univ., the court emphasized that excessively long leaves, which amount to an employee "not working" for many months, are generally not considered reasonable accommodations because they impose obvious burdens on employers. The court distinguished García-Ayala v. Lederle Parenterals, Inc., noting that case involved a much shorter leave request and evidence that the employer could easily cover the position. Delgado provided insufficient evidence to overcome the clear burdens associated with such an extensive leave. Since Delgado failed to identify a reasonable accommodation, the court also dismissed her claim that AstraZeneca failed to engage in an interactive process, stating such a claim cannot be maintained without an underlying reasonable accommodation. For the ADA retaliation claim, the court assumed Delgado established a prima facie case based on the close temporal proximity between her May 17 leave request (protected activity) and the May 18 termination letter (adverse action). However, AstraZeneca offered two legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for her termination: (1) her failure to return to work after her STD benefits expired, which under company policy constituted presumed resignation, and (2) the elimination of her position due to a reorganization. Delgado failed to demonstrate these reasons were pretextual. The court found no inconsistency between "failure to return to work" and "presumed resignation," as AstraZeneca's letters explicitly linked them and the company's STD policy supported this interpretation. Furthermore, it found no inconsistency between these reasons and the "position elimination" justification; the May 18 letter referenced a reorganization for a severance offer, and later communications clarified the position elimination. The court rejected Delgado's arguments that AstraZeneca violated its STD policy regarding unpaid leave (as she hadn't exhausted all benefits) or return-to-work dates (finding the policy ambiguous for her specific circumstances). Delgado also failed to rebut Cohran's testimony about a second reorganization that specifically eliminated her position. Consequently, the court held that temporal proximity alone was insufficient to establish pretext. Regarding the Puerto Rico law claims: (1) Summary judgment on Law 44 was affirmed because it is coterminous with the ADA. (2) Summary judgment on Article 1802 negligence claims, which were premised on ADA/Law 44 violations, was affirmed as those claims failed. (3) Summary judgment on Article 1802 emotional distress claims was affirmed because Delgado failed to identify specific conduct independent of her other claims. (4) Summary judgment on Law 80 wrongful discharge claims was affirmed because AstraZeneca provided just cause (failure to return to work, position elimination), and Delgado failed to rebut this showing with evidence of pretext, for the same reasons her ADA retaliation claim failed.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the boundaries of what constitutes a 'reasonable accommodation' under the ADA, particularly emphasizing that lengthy, open-ended leaves of absence are likely to be deemed unreasonable. It places a substantial burden on employees to demonstrate not only the potential efficacy but also the 'facial reasonableness' of requested accommodations, considering the practical impact on the employer. Furthermore, the decision reinforces the principle that while close temporal proximity can establish a prima facie case for retaliation, it is insufficient, on its own, to overcome an employer's presentation of legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for termination, underscoring the high bar for proving pretext in such claims. This ruling provides employers with clearer guidance on the scope of their accommodation duties and the defense of their employment decisions.
