Court Opinion

ID: 2964781
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:31:01.280335+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:43:01.556936
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 96-2259

                                   JANICE R. PERRY,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                         NEW ENGLAND BUSINESS SERVICE, INC.,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                    [Hon. Richard G. Stearns, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                           Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                     ____________________
                              and Boudin, Circuit Judge.
                                          _____________

                                 ____________________

            Janice R. Perry on brief pro se.
            _______________
            Michael  J. Pineault, Richard L. Alfred and Hill & Barlow on brief
            ____________________  _________________     _____________
        for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                     June 3, 1997
                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.   Plaintiff brought  an action  against
                      __________

            her  employer under  the  American with  Disabilities Act  of

            1990, 42 U.S.C.   12112(b)(5)(A), and Mass. Gen. L. ch. 151B,

            alleging handicap discrimination in the employer's failure to

            modify a restroom  door.  The district  court granted summary

            judgment on the ground that the evidence showed  that neither

            plaintiff nor  her  employer  had realized  at  the  time  of

            plaintiff's original request  that a modification was  needed

            specifically to accommodate plaintiff's physical limitations.

            Reviewing the judgment de novo, and reading the entire record
                                   __ ____

            in  the light  most favorable  to  plaintiff, see  Grenier v.
                                                          ___  _______

            Cyanamid Plastics, Inc., 70 F.3d 667, 671 (1st Cir. 1995), we
            _______________________

            agree that  there was insufficient summary  judgment evidence

            which  would  allow  a   reasonable  jury  to  conclude  that

            plaintiff's employer discriminated against her by refusing to

            reasonably  accommodate  known  limitations  related  to  her

            disability.  

                      The court did not  abuse its discretion in allowing

            plaintiff's privately-retained counsel  to withdraw from  the

            representation, nor  in refusing to provide  plaintiff with a

            court-appointed substitute.    Plaintiff was given sufficient

            opportunity to  seek new counsel.   There is no merit  to the

            remaining assignments of error. 

                      The judgment is affirmed.  See Loc. R. 27.1
                                      ________   ___

                                         -2-