Pena v. Honeywell International, Inc.
923 F.3d 18 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employee who applies for Social Security Disability Income (SSDI) and swears to being 'totally disabled' is precluded from being a 'qualified individual' under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) unless they offer a sufficient explanation to reconcile the contradictory positions. Simply pointing out the different legal standards between the ADA and SSDI is not a sufficient explanation to survive summary judgment.
Facts:
- Mayra Pena worked as a machine operator for Honeywell International, Inc. beginning around 2008.
- In 2012, Honeywell instituted a policy requiring all employees to be cross-trained to work in all departments, including the molding department, which Pena found exacerbated her anxiety and depression.
- In February 2013, Pena requested not to work in the molding department, stating it was 'harmful to [her] emotionally.'
- On March 8, 2013, after providing a doctor's note supporting her request, Honeywell management told Pena the only available work was in the molding department. Pena refused the assignment, went home, and never returned to work.
- After several months of communications where Honeywell requested more detailed medical information and Pena's attorney declined, Honeywell terminated Pena's employment on June 17, 2013, for job abandonment.
- On September 20, 2013, Pena applied for SSDI benefits, stating under penalty of perjury, 'I became unable to work because of my disabling condition on March 8, 2013,' and 'I am still disabled.'
Procedural Posture:
- On April 16, 2015, Mayra Pena filed a complaint against Honeywell International, Inc. in Rhode Island Superior Court (a state trial court).
- Honeywell removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island (a federal trial court).
- After discovery, Honeywell filed a motion for summary judgment on all claims.
- A federal magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation that the district court grant Honeywell's motion.
- On January 29, 2018, the U.S. District Court judge accepted the recommendation and granted summary judgment in favor of Honeywell.
- Pena (as appellant) filed a timely appeal of the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, where Honeywell 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:
Does an employee's sworn statement on a Social Security Disability Income (SSDI) application, asserting total disability as of her last day of work, preclude her from establishing she is a 'qualified individual' under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) when she fails to offer a sufficient factual explanation to reconcile the contradictory claims?
Opinions:
Majority - Lynch, J.
Yes, an employee's sworn statement of total disability on an SSDI application precludes her from being a 'qualified individual' under the ADA if she fails to provide a sufficient explanation for the contradiction. The Supreme Court's decision in Cleveland v. Policy Management Systems Corp. requires an ADA plaintiff who has previously claimed total disability to offer an explanation sufficient to allow a reasonable juror to conclude that, despite the earlier statement, the plaintiff could still perform the essential functions of her job with or without accommodation. Pena failed to meet this burden. Merely arguing that the legal standards for SSDI and the ADA differ is insufficient. Furthermore, Pena's own deposition testimony repeatedly and consistently affirmed that she was totally disabled as of March 8, 2013, reinforcing the contradiction. Her attempt to create a factual dispute with a subsequent, contradictory affidavit is impermissible under the 'sham affidavit' doctrine. Because Pena failed to establish the essential element that she was a 'qualified individual,' her discrimination and failure-to-accommodate claims fail as a matter of law.
Dissenting - Lipez, J.
No, an employee's sworn statement of total disability on an SSDI application should not preclude her from being considered a 'qualified individual' under the ADA where she provides an explanation a reasonable juror could accept. The majority misapplies Cleveland, which was intended to prevent courts from being too quick to find a conflict between SSDI and ADA claims. Pena offered a sufficient explanation: her statement that she was 'unable to work' was made in the context of Honeywell having already denied her the reasonable accommodation she needed. A reasonable juror could conclude that she had a good-faith belief she was unable to work without the accommodation, which is consistent with her ADA claim that she could work with it. The SSDI application process does not account for reasonable accommodations. Pena's general statement of disability is a context-related legal conclusion, not an irreconcilable contradiction of 'purely factual matters' that judicial estoppel is meant to prevent. Therefore, she should have been allowed to present her ADA claim to a jury.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a high evidentiary bar for plaintiffs in the First Circuit who file an ADA claim after having applied for SSDI benefits. It clarifies that under the Supreme Court's Cleveland standard, a plaintiff must do more than recite the theoretical differences between the ADA and Social Security disability standards; they must provide a specific, fact-based explanation for their contradictory positions. The ruling also strongly reinforces the 'sham affidavit' rule, preventing a plaintiff from rescuing their case at the summary judgment stage by submitting an affidavit that contradicts their prior sworn deposition testimony. The case serves as a strong cautionary tale for employment law practitioners about the potential preclusive effects of an SSDI application on a subsequent ADA claim.
