Tobin v. Liberty Mutual Insurance
2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 1278, 21 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 769, 553 F.3d 121 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer's denial of an employee's renewed request for a reasonable accommodation constitutes a new, discrete discriminatory act that triggers its own statute of limitations period. Each denial is an independently actionable event, even if prior, similar requests were denied outside the limitations period.
Facts:
- Kevin Tobin, a sales representative for Liberty Mutual Insurance Company for nearly 37 years, was diagnosed with bipolar disorder in 1992, which impaired his focus, concentration, and ability to complete work.
- Beginning in the early 1990s, Tobin consistently failed to meet the company's annual quotas for new policy sales.
- Tobin repeatedly asked Liberty Mutual for two specific accommodations: increased support from staff for customer service calls and an assignment to a 'Mass Marketing' (MM) account, which provides access to a large volume of potential clients.
- Liberty Mutual repeatedly denied Tobin's requests for an MM account, stating he was ineligible because he failed to meet the performance-based criteria for such assignments.
- From 1996 onward, Tobin was placed on multiple warning periods and probations due to his poor sales performance.
- Tobin met with his supervisor at least weekly from February 1999 until his termination, during which he testified he continually made the same two requests for accommodation.
- On January 2, 2001, during a meeting with his supervisor, Tobin complained about not being on a 'level playing field', and the supervisor's notes from that meeting included the notation 'No MM accts'.
- Liberty Mutual terminated Tobin's employment on January 10, 2001, for consistent poor performance.
Procedural Posture:
- Kevin Tobin filed a lawsuit against Liberty Mutual in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleging disability discrimination, including failure to accommodate, under the ADA and Massachusetts law.
- The district court initially granted summary judgment in favor of Liberty Mutual on all claims.
- Tobin, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
- The First Circuit affirmed summary judgment on Tobin's pretext claim but vacated the summary judgment on the reasonable accommodation claim and remanded the case for trial.
- On remand, an eleven-day jury trial was held in the district court, resulting in a verdict for Tobin for over $1.3 million.
- Liberty Mutual filed a post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, for a new trial.
- The district court denied Liberty Mutual's motion but conditioned the denial on Tobin's acceptance of a $90,000 remittitur, which Tobin accepted.
- Liberty Mutual, as appellant, appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Tobin, as appellee, cross-appealed.
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 employer's denial of a renewed request for a reasonable accommodation constitute a new, discrete discriminatory act that triggers its own statute of limitations period, even if prior requests for the same accommodation were denied outside the limitations period?
Opinions:
Majority - Lipez
Yes, an employer's denial of a renewed request for a reasonable accommodation constitutes a new, discrete discriminatory act that triggers its own statute of limitations period. The court reasoned that while the continuing violation doctrine does not apply to discrete acts like an accommodation denial, a new denial of a renewed request is itself an independently actionable discriminatory act. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, the court held that the existence of past, time-barred discriminatory acts does not prevent an employee from filing a timely charge concerning new, related discrete acts. This approach is particularly important in disability discrimination cases, as an employee's condition or workplace circumstances may change, warranting a re-evaluation of a previously denied accommodation. The court found there was sufficient, albeit circumstantial, evidence for a jury to infer that Tobin renewed his request for an MM account during a meeting on January 2, 2001, which fell within the limitations period for his claim under Massachusetts law, and consequently, his federal ADA claim as well.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the application of the statute of limitations for 'failure to accommodate' claims under the ADA. By treating each denial of a renewed accommodation request as a new discrete act, the court prevents employers from relying on a single, early denial to run out the clock on an employee's rights. This establishes a continuing obligation for employers to consider accommodation requests on their merits, even if similar requests were previously denied. The ruling empowers employees with long-term or changing disabilities to re-engage with their employers about accommodations without being procedurally barred by earlier, time-barred denials.
Unlock the full brief for Tobin v. Liberty Mutual Insurance