Morse v. JetBlue Airways Corp.

• Citation: 941 F.Supp.2d 274
• Decision Date: 31 March 2013
• Docket Number: No. 09–CV–5075 (KAM)(MDG).,09–CV–5075 (KAM)(MDG).
• Parties: Emilie MORSE, Plaintiff, v. JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORPORATION, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

941 F.Supp.2d 274

Emilie MORSE, Plaintiff,

v.JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORPORATION, Defendant.

No. 09–CV–5075 (KAM)(MDG).

United States District Court, E.D. New York.

March 31, 2013.

Jennifer Lea Smith, John A. Beranbaum, Beranbaum Menken LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiff.

Edward Cerasia, II, Caitlin Alexis Senff, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart, P.C., New York, NY, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MATSUMOTO, District Judge.

Plaintiff Emilie Morse (“Morse” or “plaintiff”) is a former Inflight Supervisor who worked for defendant JetBlue Airways Corporation (“JetBlue” or “defendant”) until her termination on July 8, 2006. Plaintiff filed the instant action on November 19, 2009, alleging that defendant wrongfully terminated her employment on the basis of her disability and failed to provide a reasonable accommodation for her disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq. (“ADA”); New York State Human Rights Law §§ 290 et seq. (“NYSHRL”); and New York City Human Rights Law §§ 8–101 et seq. (“NYCHRL”).

The parties have completed discovery and defendant moves for summary judgment on grounds that (a) plaintiff is judicially estopped from asserting her claims; (b) plaintiff's NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims, and certain of her ADA claims, are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations; (c) plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case that the defendant/employer failed to accommodate her disability; and (d) plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case of discriminatory discharge. Plaintiff opposes the motion in its entirety. For the reasons set forth below, defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part.

BACKGROUND¹

Between 2003 and 2006, plaintiff was employed in the Inflight Department of JetBlue as an “Inflight Supervisor.” (ECF No. 45, Defendant's 56.1 Statement of Material Facts (“Def. 56.1”) ¶¶ 1–2, 38; ECF No. 53, Plaintiff's 56.1 Statement of Material Facts (“Pl. 56.1”) ¶¶ 1–2, 38; ECF No. 1, Complaint, (“Compl.”) ¶¶ 8–9; ECF Nos. 49–2 & 60–3, Deposition of Emilie Morse (“Morse Dep.”), at 9, 212; ECF No. 9, Answer, ¶¶ 8–9; ECF No. 49–3, Morse Dep. Ex. 10.) The details of plaintiff's employment history at JetBlue and the allegations giving rise to this action are set forth in detail below.

I. Inflight Supervisor Position

A. Flying Qualification Requirement

As an Inflight Supervisor, plaintiff had to complete certain training and become qualified to fly as a flight attendant. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 8; Morse Dep. 23; Morse Dep. Ex. 1; ECF Nos. 49–6 & 60–5, Deposition of Karen Cozzie (“Cozzie Dep.”) at 42, 50–51.) The requisite qualification training occurred on an annual basis. At first, to be qualified to fly, plaintiff completed FAA-approved “initial training,” which required physical activity and actually flying aboard an aircraft in a “check ride.” (Def. 56.1 ¶ 9; Pl. 56.1 ¶ 9; Morse Dep. at 33–35, 55, 57–50, 99; ECF No. 49–15, Cerasia Declaration (“Cerasia Decl.”), Ex. N—Flight AttendantManual; ECF No. 49–16, Cerasia Decl., Ex. O—Federal Aviation Regulations.)

Each year thereafter, to remain qualified as a flight attendant, plaintiff was required to complete FAA-mandated “recurrent training,” which did not require flying. (Def. 56.1 ¶¶ 9–10; Pl. 56.1 ¶¶ 9–10; Cerasia Decl. Ex. N; Cozzie Dep. at 51–53, 57; Morse Dep. at 31–35.) The recurrent training involved a review of evacuation and emergency procedures as well as physical activity, including opening a “pretty heavy” aircraft door; removing a window from its casing and throwing it over the wing of an aircraft; exiting an aircraft via an emergency slide; and climbing over seats. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 11; Pl. 56.1 ¶ 11; Morse Dep. at 31–32, 54, 57.)

B. Position Expectations

1. Pre–April 2006

Until April 2006, the job description—or “Position Expectations”—for the Inflight Supervisor position included flying onboard aircrafts and being qualified as a flight attendant. (Def. 56.1 ¶¶ 4, 8; Pl. 56.1 ¶¶ 4, 8; ECF No. 49–3, Morse Deposition Exhibits (“Morse Dep. Ex.”) Ex. 1.) Specifically, the Inflight Supervisor Position Expectations included the following “essential functions”: “Completes inflight observations and evaluate[s] Inflight Crewmembers on a consistent basis”; “Ensures understanding of job-related information by observing Inflight Crewmembers on duty”; and “Works in-flight as a qualified Flight Attendant as needed.” (Def. 56.1 ¶ 4; Morse Dep. Ex. 1; Morse Dep. at 15–17, 69.)

Morse supervised a group of seventy-five to eighty of JetBlue's flight attendants, or Inflight Crewmembers (“Crewmembers”), and she was responsible for assessing their performance during flights on “check rides” by observing their teamwork and interactions with passengers, and ensuring that Crewmembers knew how to operate the aircraft's emergency equipment.² (Def. 56.1 ¶ 5; Morse Dep. at 15–17, 69.)

In approximately March or April 2005, JetBlue began to require Inflight Supervisors to fly at least twenty hours per month. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 7; Morse Dep. at 19.) Although plaintiff does not dispute the twenty-hour flight requirement for Inflight Supervisors, she claims that it was not enforced in practice, noting that at least three Inflight Supervisors continued to work as Inflight Supervisors for extended periods of time without flying: (1) the plaintiff herself, between December 2004 and July 2005; (2) Denise Piccolo, between January 2004 and May 2005; and (3) John Lewis, between April 2006 and April 2007.³ (Pl. 56.1 ¶¶ 7–8; Morse Dep. at 46–47, 72, 102, 110–11; ECF No. 60–5, Deposition of Denise Piccolo (“Piccolo Dep.”) at 30–31, 35–36, 39, 41; ECF No. 60–6, Deposition of John Lewis (“Lewis Dep.”) at 46.)

Approximately two years after plaintiff joined JetBlue, defendant's policies changed and Inflight Supervisors no longer flew as passengers on “check rides”; instead, when they flew, they worked as part of the working crew and performed tasks alongside Inflight Crewmembers. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 6; ⁴ Pl. 56.1 ¶ 6; Morse Dep. at 17.)

2. Post–April 2006

In approximately April 2006, JetBlue divided the functions of the Inflight Supervisor position among four newly created Inflight Supervisor positions: (1) Crewmember Experience; (2) Base Operations; (3) Systems Operations; and (4) Onboard Experience. (Pl. 56.1 ¶ 33; Cozzie Dep. at 20–26; Cozzie Dep. Exs. 4 & 6.) Although the core functions of the first three teams did not include flying, “all supervisors flew at some point, or [were] required to be a qualified flight attendant regardless if it was their day-to-day duty or not.” (Pl. 56.1 ¶ 33; Cozzie Dep. at 24, 42–51.)

The Position Expectations for the “Inflight Supervisor, Base Operations” position indicated that the position “require[d] strenuous physical work,” including “[h]eavy lifting, pushing or pulling of objects up to 100 pounds occasionally and/or up to 50 pounds frequently.” (Cozzie Dep. Ex. 6.) The Position Expectations for the “Inflight Supervisor, Systems Operations” position included the “ab[ility] to cover trips away from base overnight” and “willing[ness] to fly trips when required by [irregular operation] situations.” ⁵ (Lewis Dep. Ex. 2.)

II. Plaintiff's Employment History at JetBlue

Plaintiff began working for JetBlue in November 2003 as an Inflight Supervisor. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 1; Pl. 56.1 ¶ 1; Morse Dep. At 9; Compl. ¶ 9; Answer ¶ 9.) Shortly thereafter, Morse completed initial training to become qualified as a flight attendant. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 8; Pl. 56.1 ¶ 8; Morse Dep. at 30.)

Plaintiff acknowledges that “observing flight attendants flying” was an “important” part of her job as an Inflight Supervisor, and that some of the tasks listed as “essential functions” on the Inflight Supervisor job description involved flying on airplanes. (Pl. 56.1 ¶ 4; Morse Dep. at 25–26, 69.) Nevertheless, plaintiff asserts that in practice, the flying-related functions were not “essential” to the Inflight Supervisor position, because she “never flew a lot” during the period between November 2003 and December 2004. (Pl. 56.1 ¶ 4; Morse Dep. at 25–26, 69.) During that period, plaintiff and her fellow Inflight Supervisors flew onboard airplanes only when they were conducting “check rides” to observe Crewmembers as they worked on a flight. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 4; Pl. 56.1 ¶ 4; Jenkins Dep. at 14; Morse Dep. at 69.) Plaintiff estimates that at most, she flew approximately twelve times in a month as an Inflight Supervisor. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 6; Morse Dep. at 25–26.)

A. Relief from Flying Duties

Plaintiff was scheduled to complete recurrent training in November 2004, after her first full year at JetBlue; however. she did not attend the training because she had started to experience back problems. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 12; Pl. 56.1 ¶ 12; Morse Dep. at 33–35, 47, 236; Compl. ¶ 14.) Shortly thereafter, in approximately December 2004, plaintiff's doctor informed her that she was unable to fly. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 30; Pl. 56.1 ¶ 30; Morse Dep. at 60–61, 335–36.) At that time, plaintiff asked Valerie Jenkins (“Jenkins”), who was then-Manager of Inflight and plaintiff's supervisor, if she required plaintiff to furnish medical documentation to substantiate her inability to fly. Jenkins declined and took plaintiff at her word and informally relieved Morse of her flying requirements due to plaintiff's health problems. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 13; Pl. 56.1 ¶ 13; Morse Dep. at 24, 26–27, 68.) Jenkins also told plaintiff that her health came first, and encouraged plaintiff to recover before worrying about fulfilling her recurrent training requirements. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 13; Pl. 56.1 ¶ 13; Morse Dep. at 35, 52, 94.)

Consequently, in approximately January 2005, Morse stopped flying altogether because JetBlue relieved plaintiff of her flying duties. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 14; Pl. 56.1 ¶ 4, 14; Morse Dep. at 46–47; 62, 72, 102, 110–11.) As a result, other Inflight Supervisors performed the “check rides” of flight attendants who reported to plaintiff. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 15; Pl. 56.1 ¶ 15; Morse...