Burnett v. Ocean Props., Ltd.
| Decision Date | 02 February 2021 |
| Docket Number | 19-2087,Nos. 19-2086,s. 19-2086 |
| Parties | Ryan D. BURNETT, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. OCEAN PROPERTIES, LTD.; AmeriPort, LLC, Defendants, Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit |
Timothy J. Bryant, Jonathan G. Mermin, Portland, ME, and Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios LLP, were on brief for appellant Ocean Properties, Ltd.
Elizabeth A. Germani, Robert P. Hayes, Portland, ME, and Germani Martemucci & Hill were on brief for appellant AmeriPort, LLC.
Laura H. White, Danielle M. Quinlan, and White & Quinlan, LLC, were on brief for appellee.
Melissa A. Hewey, Amy K. Olfene, Michael L. Buescher, Portland, ME, and Drummond Woodsum were on brief for HospitalityMaine, amicus curiae.
Kristin L. Aiello was on brief for Disability Rights Maine, amicus curiae.
Before Howard, Chief Judge, Lynch and Thompson, Circuit Judges.
Appellee Ryan D. Burnett, who relies on a wheelchair for mobility, sued Appellants AmeriPort, LLC, and Ocean Properties, Ltd., for failing to accommodate his disability at work, as required under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, and Maine Human Rights Act ("MHRA"), Me. Stat. tit. 5, § 4571 (1971). He prevailed and a jury awarded Burnett compensatory and punitive damages for his troubles. Over Appellants' protestations, the district court upheld the verdicts and entered judgment in Burnett's favor but remitted the punitive damages award. Appellants are here challenging the verdicts, amended judgment, and order denying their post-trial motions. After careful consideration, we affirm.
Ryan D. Burnett ("Burnett") was injured in a dirt bike accident and rendered paraplegic over twenty-three years ago. Starting in 2009, Burnett worked as an associate at a call center in South Portland, Maine, taking room reservations for forty-five hotels and resorts in the United States and Canada, all marketed under the umbrella term, "Ocean Properties Hotels, Resorts & Affiliates." Under 101 employees worked in the reservations department at the call center, whereas over 500 employees worked for the hotels and resorts under the Ocean Properties Hotels, Resorts & Affiliates umbrella. AmeriPort, LLC ("AmeriPort"), was Burnett's employer, and it held itself out publicly as "Ocean Properties Reservations," consistent with the umbrella moniker. Ocean Properties, Ltd. ("Ocean Properties"), was an entity that, as we discuss below, was interrelated to AmeriPort.
The call center was located in a golf clubhouse whose public entrance sported heavy, wooden doors that pulled outward and then automatically closed. Just beyond the entrance was a slight, downward slope that caused Burnett's wheelchair to roll backwards as the doors closed on him. As a result, Burnett needed to exert greater force as he struggled to enter.
On August 28, 2014, Burnett sent a message to Nick Robertshaw ("Robertshaw"), the acting office manager, requesting push-button, automatic doors at the public entrance, explaining that the "[d]oors are heavy and hard to hold open while I push myself [through] [without] them closing on me." Robertshaw did not respond to Burnett, but instead forwarded the message to his own supervisor, Lori Darsaoui ("Darsaoui"), and Darsaoui's supervisor that same day.
On September 10, 2014, Darsaoui e-mailed Mark Mooney ("Mooney"), who constructed the clubhouse and was responsible for ensuring the building was up to code, asking "if the set of large wooden doors used to enter the lobby of the clubhouse are ADA compliant." Hearing no response, Darsaoui e-mailed Mooney again on September 30, 2014: Mooney responded that same day with, "As constructed when the building was built, Yes." Darsaoui did not follow up on Mooney's e-mail and Burnett did not receive a response to his request.
One morning in October 2014, Burnett, while entering the clubhouse, injured his wrist
(causing tingling in his hand) as he pulled open the heavy door and tried to quickly push himself inside. Burnett reported the incident to another supervisor who filed an incident report on his behalf, but again no one followed up with Burnett on his request for push-button, automatic doors.
In June 2015, Burnett filed a disability discrimination complaint with the Maine Human Rights Commission ("MHRC"). In a meeting with Burnett to discuss his MHRC complaint, Darsaoui told him she was not familiar with ADA compliance and, for whatever reason, no specific mention was made of Burnett's request for push-button, automatic doors. So even the filing of a complaint yielded Burnett no relief. On February 26, 2016, Burnett gave notice of his resignation, at which time the condition of the doors remained the same.
A three-day jury trial was held concerning the only trial-worthy issue which survived pre-trial dispositive motions to Burnett's suit: whether Appellants violated the ADA and MHRA by failing to accommodate Burnett concerning the heavy wooden doors.2 Burnett was the primary witness and he testified in support of his claim that Appellants never responded to his request for push-button, automatic doors, not "even as to why they could or could not or if they were or were not compliant." Burnett recalled feeling "tired, frustrated, [and] angry" that he never heard a response to his request; he believed Appellants did not wish to accommodate him. Another witness was Darsaoui, who was called by both Burnett and Appellants. The third and final witness was Burnett's girlfriend, who testified further about Burnett's emotional distress which sometimes caused conflict in their relationship. The jury heard testimony as narrated above in our background discussion. Additionally, Appellants stipulated that replacing the doors was not an undue hardship and that Burnett had a disability, was qualified to do his job, and worked for AmeriPort; the parties disputed whether Burnett also worked for Ocean Properties.3
Appellants also sought to call Mooney to testify that he tested the doors in December 2013 or January 2014 and found the doors ADA-compliant. However, Appellants conceded they did not disclose this information to Burnett until after the jury was selected and six days before trial; Appellants had previously disclosed only that the doors were tested when the building was constructed (as revealed in Mooney's e-mail to Darsaoui, which was timely provided to Burnett in discovery). Burnett claimed he was surprised and prejudiced by the late disclosure because he would have designated an expert and tested the doors himself. Siding with Burnett, the district court prohibited Appellants from inquiring about Mooney's 2013/2014 testing of the doors as a sanction for Appellants' failure to disclose or supplement during discovery. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a), (e), 37(c). Although the ruling did not prevent Appellants from otherwise calling Mooney as a witness, Appellants opted not to do so.
Appellants moved for judgment as a matter of law at the close of Burnett's case in chief and again at the close of Appellants' case in chief, raising three total issues, which were that Burnett failed to show: (1) his requested accommodation was reasonable since he could perform the essential functions of his job; (2) Appellants acted with malice or reckless indifference towards him to support an award for punitive damages; and (3) Ocean Properties was his single or joint employer. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a). The district court denied the motion on each ground. Then, during closing arguments, Burnett's counsel made two challenged comments, of which the first was objected to and the other was not: counsel (1) suggested that the jury "imagine" what life was like for Burnett having a disability in order to award him damages and then (2) suggested a ballpark damages figure.
The jury retired to deliberate with the following agreed-upon special verdict form:
In a chambers conference during deliberations, the district judge read to counsel a note from the jury that asked whether "both questions 3 and 4 could be answered yes." The district judge said he believed both questions could be answered affirmatively and counsel for Burnett and Appellants agreed. After informing counsel that he would respond to the jury's note with "yes, both questions 3 and 4 could be answered yes," the district judge asked if there were any objections, and counsel for Burnett and Appellants replied that there was no objection.
The jury returned a verdict that answered questions 1, 3, and 4 affirmatively, found Burnett's employer had more than 500 employees (question 5), and awarded Burnett $150,000 in compensatory damages (question 2). No challenges to the verdict were raised.
Having found Appellants liable, the jury deliberated a second time to determine whether to award punitive damages. The jury returned a second verdict that found that Burnett proved Appellants acted intentionally or with reckless indifference and awarded him $500,000 in total punitive damages ($200,000 under the ADA and $300,000 under the MHRA).
After trial, Appellants renewed their motion for judgment as a matter of law raising the same grounds as before. They also moved for a new trial challenging the consistency of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. Wyman
...malice or with reckless indifference to [his] . . . rights.” Burnett v. Ocean Props., Ltd., 987 F.3d 57, 69 (1st Cir. 2021) (alterations in Burnett) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(1); 5 M.R.S. § 4613(2)(B)(8)(c)). “[M]alice and reckless indifference concern, not the employer's awareness that ......
-
Kendrick v. Me. Med. Ctr.
...‘engaged in a discriminatory practice ... with malice or with reckless indifference to [her] ... rights.’ " Burnett v. Ocean Props., Ltd., 987 F.3d 57, 69 (1st Cir. 2021) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(1) ; 5 M.R.S.A. § 4613(2)(B)(8)(c) ). "[M]alice and reckless indifference concern, not the ......
-
Johnson v. Whole Foods Mkt. Grp.
...Ocean Props., Ltd., 987 F.3d 57, 69 (1st Cir. 2021). The Defendant bears the burden of showing it tried to comply with the law in good faith. Id. and reckless indifference concern, not the employer's awareness that it is discriminating, but the employer's knowledge that it is acting in viol......
-
Diiorio-Sterling v. Capstone Mgmt., LLC
...employer may be held liable as an employer under the "single enterprise" or "single employer" theory. See Burnett v. Ocean Props., Ltd., 987 F.3d 57, 65 (1st Cir. 2021). Nominally separate entities can be considered a single enterprise if they are so sufficiently interrelated that they effe......
-
Summation
...be content with that. To press for no limiting instruction is to risk a mistrial. CASES FEDERAL CASES Burnett v. Ocean Properties, Ltd. , 987 F.3d 57 (1st Cir. 2021). The “Golden Rule” prohibits attorneys from suggesting that jurors place themselves in plaintiff’s shoes, as such comments en......
-
Review Proceedings
...to honor plea agreement waived on appeal unless plain error because no objection at trial); see, e.g. , Burnett v. Ocean Properties, Ltd., 987 F.3d 57, 72 (1st Cir. 2021) (claim of inconsistency in verdict is waived on appeal because no objection at trial); U.S. v. Kroll, 918 F.3d 47, 56-57......