MacKenzie v. City & County of Denver
2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 14225, 414 F.3d 1266, 16 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1616 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To establish a disability under the ADA, an employee must show an impairment substantially limits a major life activity; an inability to work for a specific supervisor due to stress does not qualify. An employer can defeat claims of age discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment by providing legitimate, non-pretextual reasons for its actions and showing the alleged harassment was not severe or pervasive.
Facts:
- Rita MacKenzie worked for the City and County of Denver from 1986. Her performance reviews were strong until 1994, when they began to decline.
- In November 1993, MacKenzie applied for a specialty clerk position but it was awarded to a younger candidate, Rosalinda Romero, whom the City deemed more qualified due to recent and relevant experience.
- Between March 1993 and November 1994, MacKenzie's supervisor, Patrick Gourley, made derogatory, age-related remarks to her, such as calling her an 'old lady' and 'senile'. MacKenzie admitted to making similar age-related comments towards Gourley.
- In the fall of 1994, multiple patients and staff members complained about MacKenzie's rudeness, resulting in a verbal reprimand and counseling.
- After MacKenzie filed a formal grievance in November 1994 regarding Gourley's comments, he was instructed to apologize and cease the remarks, which he did.
- Throughout 1995, numerous additional complaints about MacKenzie's rude behavior were filed by patients and staff, leading to a written reprimand, a 'below expectations' performance evaluation, and a one-day suspension.
- MacKenzie had a history of heart conditions, including an angina attack in 1990 and a heart attack in 1993, but she admitted she was able to perform her job without restrictions.
- After being transferred to a different clinic in September 1995, MacKenzie was promoted in 1997, but new complaints about her rudeness surfaced in 1998, leading to further discipline. She resigned in December 1998.
Procedural Posture:
- Rita MacKenzie filed charges of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on March 29, 1995, and April 8, 1999.
- MacKenzie filed a lawsuit against the City and County of Denver in the U.S. District Court (trial court) on November 5, 1997, alleging discrimination and retaliation.
- On August 5, 1999, MacKenzie filed a First Amended Complaint, adding a claim for constructive discharge.
- The City filed a renewed motion for summary judgment on September 15, 2000.
- The district court granted the City's motion for summary judgment on all claims on September 17, 2002.
- MacKenzie (Appellant) appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, where the City was the Appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the City and County of Denver violate the Americans with Disabilities Act or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act by discriminating against, retaliating against, creating a hostile work environment for, or constructively discharging Rita MacKenzie, when she had a documented history of performance issues related to rudeness?
Opinions:
Majority - O'Brien, Circuit Judge.
No. The City and County of Denver did not violate the ADA or ADEA because MacKenzie failed to establish a prima facie case for most of her claims and failed to show the City's legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its actions were pretextual. On the ADA claim, MacKenzie is not 'disabled' under the statute because her heart condition did not substantially limit a major life activity; specifically, an inability to work under a particular supervisor due to stress does not qualify as a substantial limitation on the major life activity of working. Regarding the ADEA claims, her disparate treatment claim failed because she could not identify similarly-situated younger employees who engaged in the same conduct but were treated better. Her failure-to-promote claim failed because the City offered a legitimate reason—the selected candidate had more recent and relevant experience—and MacKenzie could not prove this was pretext. Her retaliation claim failed because most of the alleged retaliatory acts were not legally 'adverse employment actions,' and for those that were, she could not establish a causal link due to the significant time lag between her protected activity and the adverse action. The hostile work environment claim failed because the supervisor's comments were not sufficiently 'severe or pervasive' to alter her conditions of employment, especially given the mutual bantering and the employer's prompt remedial action. Finally, her constructive discharge claim failed because the disciplinary actions she faced were a result of her own documented misconduct, not an attempt to force her to quit, and would not compel a reasonable person to resign.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high evidentiary burden on plaintiffs in employment discrimination cases at the summary judgment stage. It clarifies that minor workplace grievances and an inability to work with a specific supervisor due to stress are insufficient to sustain claims under federal discrimination laws. The case serves as a strong precedent for employers, demonstrating that well-documented performance issues and prompt, effective responses to harassment complaints provide a robust defense against claims of pretext and liability. It highlights the distinction between truly adverse employment actions and trivial inconveniences, limiting the scope of retaliation claims.
