Garrity v. United Airlines, Inc.
Citation | 421 Mass. 55,653 N.E.2d 173 |
Parties | , 4 A.D. Cases 1215, 6 NDLR P 460 Mary E. GARRITY v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC. |
Decision Date | 02 August 1995 |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
Susan F. Horwitz, Boston, for plaintiff.
Jay M. Presser, Toby G. Hartt, Springfield, for defendant.
Before LIACOS, C.J., and LYNCH, O'CONNOR and GREANEY, JJ.
In her complaint, filed in the Superior Court, the plaintiff, Mary E. Garrity, alleges that the defendant, United Airlines, Inc. (United), fired her from her position as customer service representative. Garrity alleges in one count that the firing constituted handicap discrimination in violation of G.L. c. 151B, and in a second count she alleges that the firing was a violation of her employment contract. A judge allowed United's motion for summary judgment as to both counts, and Garrity appealed. We transferred the case here on our own initiative. We affirm.
In her memorandum of decision relative to the motion for summary judgment, the judge set forth the following facts, which are taken from the summary judgment materials, see Mass.R.Civ.P. 56, 365 Mass. 824 (1974), and appear to be undisputed.
In construing and applying the Commonwealth's employment discrimination statute, G.L. c. 151B, we are helped by case law construing the analogous Federal statute, § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794 (1988). Tate v. Department of Mental Health, 419 Mass. 356, 361, 645 N.E.2d 1159 (1995). Cox v. New England Tel. & Tel. Co., 414 Mass. 375, 382-386, 607 N.E.2d 1035 (1993). Appellate decisions in this jurisdiction and elsewhere have recognized a distinction between disparate "treatment" cases and cases involving disparate "impact." Cox v. New England Tel. & Tel. Co., supra at 384-386, 607 N.E.2d 1035. This is a disparate treatment case. "Typically, such cases involve alleged intentional discrimination resulting from racial, gender, or other social bias." Id. at 385, 607 N.E.2d 1035.
To prove her claim of employment discrimination in violation of G.L. c. 151B, a plaintiff in a case such as this must first establish a prima facie case by producing evidence that she is a handicapped person, that, in spite of her handicap she is qualified for the position from which she was fired, and that she was fired solely because of her handicap. Tate v. Department of Mental Health, supra at 361, 645 N.E.2d 1159. See Cox v. New England Tel. & Tel. Co., supra at 383, 607 N.E.2d 1035. Cf. Pushkin v. Regents of the Univ. of Colo., 658 F.2d 1372, 1385-1386 (10th Cir.1981). Since this is an appeal from the allowance of the defendant's motion for summary judgment, the question before us is whether the defendant, United, has demonstrated, by reference to material described in Mass.R.Civ.P. 56(c), unmet by countervailing materials, that the plaintiff, Garrity, has no reasonable expectation of proving an essential element of her case. Kourouvacilis v. General Motors Corp., 410 Mass. 706, 716, 575 N.E.2d 734 (1991). We conclude that United has made that demonstration.
Based on the materials before her, the judge effectively concluded that Garrity could reasonably expect to prove that she was a handicapped person by reason of alcoholism and that she was fired solely because of that handicap. However, based on those materials, the judge also concluded that Garrity could not reasonably expect to prove that, in spite of her handicap, Garrity was qualified for the position of customer service representative. Because we agree with the judge on that matter (Garrity's...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Boston Housing Authority v. Bridgewaters
...from `performing the essential functions of the position,' with or without a reasonable accommodation"); Garrity v. United Airlines, Inc., 421 Mass. 55, 63, 653 N.E.2d 173 (1995) ("a handicapped employee who engages in conduct significantly inimical to the interests of his employer and in v......
-
LaRosa v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
...a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination." Def. Mem. at 9. In support of this position, UPS relies on Garrity v. United Airlines, Inc., 421 Mass. 55, 653 N.E.2d 173 (1995). Garrity considered whether an airline customer service representative was a "qualified handicapped person" for pu......
-
Labonte v. Hutchins & Wheeler
...handicap; (2) he is a "qualified handicapped person"; and (3) he was fired solely because of his handicap. Garrity v. United Airlines, Inc., 421 Mass. 55, 60, 653 N.E.2d 173 (1995); Cox v. New England Tel. & Tel. Co., 414 Mass. 375, 383, 607 N.E.2d 1035 Once a prima facie case is made, the ......
-
Crevier v. Town of Spencer
...accommodation, [such person] can perform the essential functions" of the job. 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8); accord Garrity v. United Airlines, Inc., 421 Mass. 55, 61-62, 653 N.E.2d 173 (1995) (Chapter EEOC regulations state that a job function is "essential" if it is a "fundamental job dut[y]" and ......
-
Recent U.S. Supreme Court and Massachusetts SJC Decisions Clarify Disability Discrimination Issues
...of Massachusetts, have held that an employee's disability is no excuse for workplace misconduct. See Garrity v. United Airlines, Inc., 421 Mass. 55 (1995); see also 42 U.S.C. ...