Opinion ID: 220607
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The ADA Framework

Text: The standards under the ADA are by now familiar. The ADA prohibits discrimination against a qualified individual because of the individual's disability, 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a), a prohibition which includes any failure to make reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability, id. § 12112(b)(5)(A). [5] See also Carroll v. Xerox Corp., 294 F.3d 231, 237 (1st Cir.2002). To make out a reasonable accommodation claim, Valle must show (1) that she suffers from a disability, as defined by the ADA, (2) that she is an otherwise qualified individual, meaning that she is nevertheless able to perform the essential functions of [her] job, either with or without reasonable accommodation, and (3) that the Ports Authority knew of her disability and did not reasonably accommodate it. [6] Carroll, 294 F.3d at 237; see also 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8) (defining qualified individual); Lessard v. Osram Sylvania, Inc., 175 F.3d 193, 197 (1st Cir.1999) (describing qualified). On appeal, the Ports Authority does not dispute that a reasonable jury could conclude that Valle suffers from a disability, but argues vigorously that no reasonable jury could, on Valle's evidence, have found that Valle was a qualified individual or that she was denied reasonable accommodation. [7] The ADA also prohibits retaliation against any individual because such individual has opposed any act or practice made unlawful by the ADA. 42 U.S.C. § 12203(a). Requesting an accommodation is protected conduct for purposes of the ADA's retaliation provision, Freadman v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 484 F.3d 91, 106 (1st Cir.2007), as, of course, is complaining of discrimination on the basis of disability. A plaintiff's retaliation claim may succeed even where her disability claim fails. Id. To establish a claim of retaliation, a plaintiff must show that (1) she engaged in protected conduct, (2) she suffered an adverse employment action, and (3) there was a causal connection between the protected conduct and the adverse employment action. Id. While termination of employment obviously is an adverse employment action, an environment of hostility and harassment may also suffice if it well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 68, 126 S.Ct. 2405, 165 L.Ed.2d 345 (2006) (quoting Rochon v. Gonzales, 438 F.3d 1211, 1219 (D.C.Cir.2006)); see also Billings v. Town of Grafton, 515 F.3d 39, 54 n. 13 (1st Cir.2008) (Of course, retaliatory actions that are not materially adverse when considered individually may collectively amount to a retaliatory hostile work environment.). And very close temporal proximity between the protected action by the employee and the adverse employment action by the employer may give rise to an inference of causation. Calero-Cerezo v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 355 F.3d 6, 25 (1st Cir.2004).