Opinion ID: 200559
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Qualified Handicapped Person

Text: 36 The Massachusetts anti-discrimination statute defines a qualified handicapped person as a handicapped person who is capable of performing the essential functions of a particular job, or who would be capable of performing the essential functions of a particular job with reasonable accommodation to his handicap. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B, § 1(16). J.C. Penney claims that Blockel was not a qualified handicapped person because she did not prove that she was able to perform the essential functions of her job from October through December 1997. J.C. Penney's argument rests on Blockel's testimony that she could not do the job of merchandise manager in forty hours a week. Specifically, she testified: 37 Q. And what I'm curious about is are you saying that by restricting your hours to only 40 hours a week you could not do the essential functions of your job as a merchandiser? 38 A. That's right. 39 J.C. Penney relies primarily upon August v. Offices Unlimited, Inc., 981 F.2d 576 (1st Cir.1992). In August, when the record was fatally bereft of indication that the disabled plaintiff could perform his job even with an accommodation, this court affirmed summary judgment for the employer on the plaintiff's employment discrimination claims. See id. at 581-82. 40 Here, Blockel presented other evidence sufficient to allow the jury to conclude that working more than forty hours per week was not an essential function of Blockel's position. For example, Rainero testified that senior merchandise managers were not required to work more than forty hours a week. In addition, a senior merchandise manager testified that it would be possible for managers to perform their duties, even during the holiday season, within a forty hour schedule. Blockel also presented evidence of her past superior performance despite hourly work restrictions. 41 Even assuming that Blockel understood the question and taking her response that she could not perform the job in forty hours at face value, in light of the countervailing evidence, the sum of the evidence was not so strongly and overwhelmingly inconsistent with the jury verdict, Rodowicz, 279 F.3d at 41-42 (internal citations omitted), that the verdict must be overturned. 42 Here, Blockel asserted that she was a qualified individual at the time that she asked for the forty hour week accommodation. In contrast with the facts of August, all of Blockel's disability insurance and benefit claim forms report total disability as beginning later, in January 1998 — after her requests for accommodation were denied. Thus, the jury had sufficient support to deem Blockel a qualified individual with a handicap.