Bell v. O'Reilly Auto Enters., LLC, No. 18-2164

• Decision Date: 21 August 2020
• Docket Number: No. 18-2164
• Citation: 972 F.3d 21
• Parties: Brian BELL, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. O'REILLY AUTO ENTERPRISES, LLC, d/b/a O'Reilly Auto Parts, Defendant, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

972 F.3d 21

Brian BELL, Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.O'REILLY AUTO ENTERPRISES, LLC, d/b/a O'Reilly Auto Parts, Defendant, Appellee.

No. 18-2164

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

August 21, 2020

Allan K. Townsend, with whom Chad T. Hanson was on brief, for appellant.

Christopher C. Taintor, with whom Norman, Hanson & DeTroy, LLC, was on brief, for appellee.

Before Barron, Selya, and Boudin, Circuit Judges.

BOUDIN, Circuit Judge.

Brian Bell alleged that O'Reilly Auto Enterprises ("O'Reilly") failed properly to accommodate his disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq, and the Maine Human Rights Act ("MHRA"), 5 M.R.S. § 4551 et seq. At trial, the jury found for O'Reilly. Bell now appeals.

Bell lives with Tourette's syndrome

, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and major depression. He takes medication, but experiences motor tics, often accompanied by a mild verbal noise, and he cannot concentrate easily. With depression, he wakes up weary.

Despite these symptoms, Bell earned a position with O'Reilly to manage its store in Belfast, Maine. As store manager, Bell was "[r]esponsible for the sales, profitability, appearance, and overall operations of the store." Bell trained, supervised, and evaluated employees, monitored accounting, tracked inventory, and set prices. He oversaw a small team, usually about eight to twelve employees.

Bell worked as a store manager for months without incident. During this time, not counting breaks, Bell was scheduled to work slightly more than fifty hours a week and ten-and-a-half hours a day. Beyond these scheduled hours, Bell infrequently worked an additional fifteen to thirty minutes a week to complete tasks.

But work grew more intense when Bell lost two shift leaders, leaving only a few employees who could open and close the store. Unable to schedule employees for overtime, Bell made up the difference himself, working almost 100 hours a week on fifteen-hour days. He worked from around 6:30 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. almost every day, including weekends.

Bell's symptoms grew more severe and his motor tics grew more frequent and more painful. His concentration deteriorated, as did his sleep. He told his mental health provider that he felt overwhelmed. Bell broke down soon after. At work, exhausted, he began to tremble uncontrollably, his motor tics relentless. Bell left the store to take a break, resting in his truck parked outside, but his supervisor demanded that he return. Bell went to his mental health provider to discuss his symptoms.

O'Reilly then told Bell that before he could work again, he would have to get his provider to fill out a form confirming his fitness for duty. Bell's provider indicated that he would be fit to return to work a few days later so long as he received an accommodation. She later testified that she aimed to secure an accommodation for Bell that would protect him against "overwhelming stress" by preventing O'Reilly from placing him "into the kind of working schedule that he had had, working 50 hours or more."

The two settled on the following language for the proposed accommodation: "Mr. Bell because of his mental health issues should not be scheduled for more than 9 hours 5 days a week." Bell's provider checked a box indicating that Bell's "[m]ax hours per day of work" should be restricted to nine hours. Bell faxed this form to O'Reilly.

O'Reilly denied Bell's requested accommodation. Bell's district manager said that O'Reilly understood the form to be a hard cap on his worked hours; after Bell made clear that he intended only to request a restriction on his scheduled hours, Bell's district manager directed Bell to have his provider fill out a revised form to that effect.

The provider declined to revise the form, deeming the original language adequate to convey Bell's request. Instead, she invited O'Reilly to discuss the request with her if the company needed clarification. O'Reilly never did but eventually terminated Bell.

Bell sued O'Reilly in the federal district court in Maine. Among other claims, Bell alleged that O'Reilly violated the ADA and the MHRA when it failed to provide Bell with a reasonable accommodation. Those claims survived summary judgment and went to trial.

Bell's theory of the case was that he needed O'Reilly to accommodate his disability, he had requested a reasonable accommodation, and O'Reilly had rejected it. O'Reilly had enlisted Bell to work "close to 100 hours a week, [and] his meds couldn't keep up." With the restriction, Bell's counsel argued, Bell would have "some protection" against this enlistment. But O'Reilly denied his request.

O'Reilly answered that the requested accommodation would have prevented Bell from performing a store manager's essential job functions. O'Reilly's witnesses testified that it was essential for store managers to work at least fifty hours a week, with the flexibility to do more, and Bell's requested restriction would have left him locked into a schedule below O'Reilly's "bare minimum scheduling requirement."

Bell replied that because his accommodation restricted only scheduled hours, he would have been able to work unscheduled hours. And he had confirmed in a letter to O'Reilly that he could work unscheduled hours "on occasion ... [i]f necessary." Bell testified that "if there were no other option, then [he] would have a found a way" to work the hours needed to get the job done.

In closing O'Reilly's counsel pivoted, telling the jury that "if he can do it, that means he doesn't need the accommodation. ... [and] he is at least not entitled to an accommodation under the law." He emphasized that "the judge will instruct you that even if you have a disability, you're entitled to an accommodation only if you need that accommodation in order to do the essential functions of your job." The judge gave this instruction, and the jury returned a verdict for O'Reilly on all claims.

Bell timely appealed, and among...