Opinion ID: 615207
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Changes in Colón's Work Schedule

Text: Colón claims that on February 1, 2007 she sent a request to Rodríguez to make a change in her work schedule so that Colón could attend medical appointments; because Rodríguez never answered Colón's request, she lost the balance of her sick/vacation leaves, which constituted a retaliatory act for Colón's 2006 parking spot request. We find no merit to Colón's argument. Colón testified that she never followed up with Rodríguez following her initial submission of the work change request. Specifically, the testimony provided: Q: Okay. Then you also told me and correct me if I'm wrong, that you never did that, you never followed up. You sent an electronic mail and did not give any follow up of any kind? A: Well, I didn't follow up . . . . App. at 287. This evidence, that Rodríguez simply never responded to what likely was one of numerous emails received over the course of a month in her supervisory position (and indeed, what has proved to be one of Colón's various requests for accommodation) is not sufficient for purposes of establishing a causal connection to her parking spot request. See Kosereis v. Rhode Island, 331 F.3d 207, 217 (1st Cir.2003) (affirming district court's grant of summary judgment on plaintiff's retaliation claim where plaintiff failed to show causal connection between the protected conduct and alleged retaliatory act). It also is not sufficient to show retaliatory intent, particularly where the evidence shows that, outside of this isolated incident, the Municipality made repeated efforts to accommodate Colón's absences due to her health over the course of nearly two decades. Carmona-Rivera, 464 F.3d at 20; Soileau, 105 F.3d at 17 (Evidence that an employer willingly granted an employee's request for an accommodation . . . militate[s] against making an inference of retaliation. . . .). Lastly, Colón admitted in her deposition that the Municipality subsequently approved a change in her work schedule in March 2008, permitting her to attend her medical appointments without affecting her leave balance. Thus, the record does not show Colón materially suffered on account of her accommodation request. Colón's failure to proffer evidence showing significant harm or retaliatory intent is detrimental to her claim that Rodríguez's failure to respond constituted retaliation.