Source: https://openjurist.org/145/f3d/437/criado-v-ibm-corporation-ibm-corporation
Timestamp: 2019-02-16 10:20:28
Document Index: 658897413

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1981', '§ 12112', '§ 12112', '§ 12111', '§ 12111', '§ 1630', '§ 12111']

145 F3d 437 Criado v. Ibm Corporation Ibm Corporation | OpenJurist
145 F. 3d 437 - Criado v. Ibm Corporation Ibm Corporation
145 F.3d
145 F3d 437 Criado v. Ibm Corporation Ibm Corporation
145 F.3d 437
8 A.D. Cases 336, 13 NDLR P 2
Elizabeth CRIADO, Plaintiff-Appellant,
IBM CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.
IBM CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant,
Elizabeth CRIADO, Defendant-Appellee.
Nos. 97-1341, 97-1342.
Heard Oct. 8, 1997.
A jury returned a verdict in favor of Criado on her federal and state claims, and awarded her $200,000 in compensatory damages, $209,139 for back pay, $46,384 for front pay, and $250,000 in punitive damages. The $450,000 in compensatory and punitive damages were reduced to $300,000 pursuant to a statutory damages cap found at 42 U.S.C. § 1981(b)(3)(D). The court did not award prejudgment interest or order IBM to reinstate Criado. After the parties filed a series of post-trial motions the district court decided to reconsider the issue of reinstatement and held an evidentiary hearing to determine whether it had erred in failing to order IBM to reinstate Criado. After this hearing the court determined that Criado's position had been eliminated in 1995 so that reinstatement was not warranted. The court further found that it would not order Criado's reinstatement to an alternate position because of her past antagonistic relationship with supervisors. Also, the court denied Criado's motion asking for an award of pre-judgment interest.
II. IBM's Appeal
When examining denial of a motion for a judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b) we review de novo the sufficiency of the evidence. However, we employ the same determinative standards utilized by the district court. We cannot evaluate "the credibility of witnesses, resolve conflicts in testimony, or evaluate the weight of evidence," and we must affirm unless "the evidence, viewed from the perspective most favorable to the nonmovant, is so one-sided that the movant is plainly entitled to judgment, for reasonable minds could not differ as to the outcome." Gibson v. City of Cranston, 37 F.3d 731, 735 (1st Cir.1994) (citations omitted).
IBM questions the damages awarded to Criado, including the awards of front and back pay and the assessment of punitive damages. Deciding whether to uphold a jury's award of damages is within the district court's discretion, and we will not disturb this discretion unless we find "strong evidence of a lapse in judgment." Selgas v. American Airlines, Inc., 104 F.3d 9, 12 (1st Cir.1997); see also Fishman v. Clancy, 763 F.2d 485, 489-90 (1st Cir.1985) (juries have wide discretion in determining the amount of punitive damages, and the trial court has broad discretion to affirm the jury's award of damages).
B. Criado's burden under the ADA
The ADA provides that "[n]o covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability...." 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). To prevail on an unlawful discrimination claim under the ADA a plaintiff must prove three things by a preponderance of the evidence: first, she must show that she was disabled within the meaning of the Act; second, she must prove that with or without reasonable accommodation she was a qualified individual able to perform the essential functions of the job; and third, she must show that the employer discharged her because of her disability. Jacques v. Clean-Up Group, Inc., 96 F.3d 506, 511 (1st Cir.1996).
Under the ADA, the term "discriminate" embodies "not making reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability ... unless such covered entity can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the business of such covered entity." 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A). The ADA defines "qualified individual with a disability" as "an individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires." Id. § 12111(8). The Act recognizes that a reasonable accommodation may include "job restructuring, part-time or modified work schedules," and other similar accommodations. Id. § 12111(9)(B).
C. Criado's disability
29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(2). IBM views Criado's adjustment disorder as a temporary mental condition that could not qualify as a disability under the ADA. Examining the evidence under the standard required for review of a Rule 50 motion, we hold that Criado presented evidence that could have allowed a rational jury to determine that her disability was not temporary. She had been seeing her physician for seven years and had often had periods of depression, though the particular episode is the only one that required absence from work. Furthermore, she had been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD), a permanent disability, and her physician testified that the ADD compounded her depression and anxiety disorders.
Criado also presented evidence that allowed the jury to find that her mental disorders had substantially impaired the major life activity of working. This court has recognized that in some circumstances depression can constitute a disability under the ADA. See Ralph v. Lucent Techs., 135 F.3d 166, 168 (1st Cir.1998) (assuming that plaintiff's depression constituted a disability under the ADA for the purpose of determining whether he had a probability of success on the merits of his claim and thus deserved injunctive relief); E.E.O.C. v. Amego, Inc., 110 F.3d 135, 141 (1st Cir.1997) (assuming for summary judgment purposes that plaintiff's depression and post-traumatic stress disorder rendered him "a disabled person within the meaning of the ADA"). But see Soileau v. Guilford of Maine, Inc., 105 F.3d 12, 15 (1st Cir.1997) (finding no disability because the plaintiff's episodic depression did not substantially limit any major life activity).
IBM questions whether Criado had a permanent disability, because prior to May and June of 1994 none of her major life activities was substantially impaired by her bouts with depression. Furthermore, her physician predicted she would be fully able to perform her job after she returned from her requested leave. But by the time Criado requested the leave of absence she had become unable to perform some of the functions of her job. She was having trouble dealing with stress and relating to both co-workers and clients. Depression and anxiety were causing sleep deprivation which affected her timeliness and ability to report to work. This evidence showed that her mental impairments had substantially limited her ability to work, sleep, and relate to others. Overall, there was evidence indicating that she was unable to adequately perform her job as she had in the past. That her depression had been adequately treated through therapy in the past and was expected to be adequately treated through therapy and medication in the future does not establish that she does not have a disability. See Arnold v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 136 F.3d 854, 859 (1st Cir.1998) ("Both the explicit language and the illustrative examples included in the ADA's legislative history make it abundantly clear that Congress intended the analysis of an 'impairment' and of the question whether it 'substantially limits a major life activity' to be made on the basis of the underlying (physical or mental) condition, without considering the ameliorative effects of medication, prostheses, or other mitigating measures.") (citing H.R.Rep. No. 101-485, pt. III, at 28 (1989), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 445, 451; H.R.Rep. No. 101-485, pt. II, at 52 (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 303, 334; S.Rep. No. 101-116, at 23 (1989)); Krocka v. Bransfield, 969 F.Supp. 1073, 1085 (N.D.Ill.1997) (summary judgment for employer not warranted where plaintiff's ability to function generally and to interact with others--and therefore to work--were substantially limited before he was treated for depression with Prozac and therapy).
D. Qualified individual
E. Reasonable accommodation
IBM contends that, even assuming Criado was disabled and qualified, it did not violate the ADA because the accommodation she requested was not reasonable. Reasonable accommodations under the ADA can include "[j]ob restructuring; part-time or modified work schedules; [or] reassignment to a vacant position; ... and other similar accommodations for individuals with disabilities." 42 U.S.C. § 12111(9)(B). A leave of absence and leave extensions are reasonable accommodations in some circumstances. See Rodgers v. Lehman, 869 F.2d 253, 259 (4th Cir.1989) (decided under section 501(b) of the Rehabilitation Act and finding leaves reasonable accommodations for alcoholics); Kimbro v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 889 F.2d 869, 878-79 (9th Cir.1989) (interpreting an analogous state statute); 29 C.F.R. pt. 32, App. A(b) (Department of Labor regulations announcing that a reasonable accommodation may require an employer "to grant liberal time off or leave without pay when paid sick leave is exhausted and when the disability is of a nature that it is likely to respond to treatment of hospitalization"); 29 C.F.R. pt. 1630, App. (EEOC interpretive guidance on the ADA stating that a reasonable accommodation "could include permitting the use of accrued paid leave or providing additional unpaid leave for necessary treatment"). Whether the leave request is reasonable turns on the facts of the case. Compare Ralph, 135 F.3d at 172 (for the purpose of granting injunction, success on the merits was likely because employer may be required to grant additional accommodations beyond a 52-week leave with pay for employee who suffered a mental breakdown) with Evans v. Federal Express Corp., 133 F.3d 137, 140-41 (1st Cir.1998) (employer not required to grant an additional leave of absence for employee to receive treatment for alcohol abuse where prior leave was granted for employee to seek treatment for cocaine addiction).
F. Reason for Criado's termination
Moreover, IBM's position ignores its duty to accommodate under the ADA. IBM was on notice that Criado was suffering from a mental impairment and that she needed time to adjust to her exacerbated condition. "An employee's request for reasonable accommodation requires a great deal of communication between the employee and employer[;] ... both parties bear responsibility for determining what accommodation is necessary." Bultemeyer v. Fort Wayne Community Schools, 100 F.3d 1281, 1285 (7th Cir.1996) (also noting that "[i]n a case involving an employee with mental illness, the communication process becomes more difficult," and "[i]t is crucial that the employer [is] aware of the difficulties, and help the other party determine what specific accommodations are necessary") (internal quotations and citation omitted). If the termination was the result of a communication mistake Criado should have been reinstated once her physician explained her condition and prognosis and asked for additional leave. See Bultemeyer, 100 F.3d at 1286 (holding that although physician's letter requesting an accommodation for disabled employee came after employer's decision to terminate, employer should have "reconsider[ed] the decision to terminate his employment").
Specifically, IBM contends that, even if the verdict in favor of Criado was proper, the amount of damages should be reduced because Criado would have been terminated in March 1995 as a result of an IBM reduction in force. Therefore, IBM says, back pay should have been limited to the period from August 1994, when Criado was terminated, to March 1995, and that no award of front pay was justified because reinstatement was impossible. In considering whether Criado's damages award was proper the district court made findings of fact that supported the jury's awards. "This court sets aside such findings only if they are 'clearly erroneous.' " Scarfo v. Cabletron Sys., Inc., 54 F.3d 931, 952 (1st Cir.1995) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a)).
This circuit has held that under federal law the evidence of intent that is necessary to support a punitive damages award "is the same [evidence of] 'intent' that is required for a finding of discrimination in the first place." Dichner v. Liberty Travel, 141 F.3d 24 (1st Cir.1998) (citing Rowlett v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 832 F.2d 194, 205 (1st Cir.1987) (recognizing that "the state of mind necessary to trigger liability for the wrong is at least as culpable as that required to make punitive damages applicable")). Rowlett, relying on Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 52-54, 103 S.Ct. 1625, 75 L.Ed.2d 632 (1983), held that a finding of intentional discrimination is sufficient to warrant punishment for a defendant in order to deter future similar conduct if the jury exercising its "discretionary moral judgment" so decides. Rowlett, 832 F.2d at 205-06.
In her cross-appeal Criado contends that the district court erred by failing to award prejudgment interest and by refusing to order her reinstatement. Both of these decisions are within the district court's discretion, and we review them only for abuse of that discretion. See Hogan v. Bangor & Aroostook R. Co., 61 F.3d 1034, 1038 (1st Cir.1995) (whether to award prejudgment interest is within discretion of district court); Rosario-Torres v. Hernandez-Coln, 889 F.2d 314, 320 (1st Cir.1989)("[R]einstatement is a remedy which lies within the discretion of the trial court.").