Ward v. Massachusetts Health Research Institute, Inc.
2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 6678, 10 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 776, 209 F.3d 29 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer may not be granted summary judgment in an ADA wrongful discharge claim if there are genuine disputes of material fact as to whether an employee's disability-related tardiness renders them unqualified to perform essential job functions, or if a requested modified work schedule would impose an undue hardship.
Facts:
- In September 1991, Massachusetts Health Research Institute (MHRI) hired Michael Ward as a lab and data entry assistant under a 'flex-time' schedule allowing starts between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m.
- Beginning in early 1992, Ward frequently arrived after 9:00 a.m. but still completed his required daily hours.
- In December 1992, after receiving a warning about tardiness, Ward informed his supervisor, Carly Ferrin-Gardner, that his arthritis caused morning stiffness and pain, leading to his reassignment to a full-time data entry position.
- Throughout 1993, Ward continued to be late and received performance reviews and warnings noting his tardiness, with his doctor sending a note to MHRI in August 1993 confirming his inflammatory arthritis.
- In October 1993, Ward was suspended for three days without pay for allegedly falsifying his time sheet regarding his arrival time, which he denied.
- Upon returning, Ward formally disclosed his disability on an employment form and informed Patricia Leonard, MHRI's director of human resources, about his arthritis, requesting a modified work schedule.
- Leonard rejected Ward's accommodation request without seeking further medical details, stating the existing flex-time was sufficient.
- On March 4, 1994, MHRI terminated Ward for excessive tardiness after he arrived late on two consecutive days, despite his doctor later explaining his arthritis symptoms were most severe and unpredictable in the mornings.
Procedural Posture:
- Michael Ward filed an action against Massachusetts Health Research Institute (MHRI) in federal district court on June 20, 1996, alleging wrongful discharge and hostile environment under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Massachusetts anti-discrimination law.
- The district court granted summary judgment for MHRI on May 7, 1999, assuming Ward's arthritis was a disability but finding he failed to satisfy the 'qualified individual' or 'discharged because of disability' elements of his prima facie case.
- Ward, as appellant, appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, challenging only the ADA and state disability law claims related to reasonable accommodation and termination due to disability.
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 motion for summary judgment in an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) wrongful discharge claim properly stand when there are genuine issues of material fact regarding whether an employee's disability-related tardiness precludes them from performing essential job functions and whether a flexible schedule constitutes a reasonable accommodation or an undue hardship?
Opinions:
Majority - Torruella, Chief Judge
No, an employer's motion for summary judgment in an ADA wrongful discharge claim does not properly stand when there are genuine issues of material fact regarding whether an employee's disability-related tardiness precludes them from performing essential job functions and whether a flexible schedule constitutes a reasonable accommodation or an undue hardship. The court reversed the district court's summary judgment, finding that MHRI failed to demonstrate that a regular and predictable schedule was an essential function of Ward's data entry position, noting the lack of evidence that his duties required specific hours and that his work was only time-sensitive in that it had to be completed before the next day. The court also found a genuine dispute regarding MHRI's claim of Ward's need for constant supervision, which was their sole explanation for requiring a set schedule. Furthermore, the court determined that MHRI did not meet its burden to prove that Ward's requested flexible schedule was an undue hardship. MHRI offered only general statements about workplace control, rather than specific evidence of 'significant difficulty or expense' such as the need for extra security, janitorial staff, or reallocation of co-worker duties. Lastly, the court found a genuine dispute as to whether Ward was discharged because of his disability, distinguishing his case from precedents where misconduct was merely related to a disability, as Ward's tardiness flowed directly from his arthritis symptoms of morning stiffness, pain, and unpredictability.
Analysis:
This case emphasizes the employer's burden to demonstrate that a job function is truly 'essential' and that a proposed accommodation presents an 'undue hardship,' particularly in the context of flexible schedules for employees with unpredictable disabilities. It clarifies that attendance, while often presumed essential, requires a fact-intensive inquiry into the specific job's characteristics and the actual impact of the employee's modified schedule. The ruling also reinforces the direct causal link needed between a disability and the conduct leading to termination, preventing employers from easily separating a disability from its symptoms. This decision makes it more challenging for employers to obtain summary judgment in ADA cases involving flexible work schedule requests for disability-related attendance issues, encouraging a more thorough factual examination at trial.
