Olson v. Chao
| Decision Date | 30 September 2019 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 3:17-cv-10970-KAR |
| Parties | ANGELA OLSON, Plaintiff, v. ELAINE L. CHAO, Secretary of the Department of Transportation, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 56
Plaintiff Angela Olson ("Plaintiff"), an employee of the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA"), has brought an employment discrimination claim against the defendant Elaine L. Chao, Secretary of the Department of Transportation ("Defendant"). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., by illegally discriminating against her on account of her physical and mental disabilities, denying her reasonable accommodations, subjecting her to a hostile work environment, and retaliating against her. Defendant denies liability and has filed a motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 75). The parties have consented to this court's jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c); Fed. R. Civ. P. 73. After hearing the parties' arguments and considering their written submissions, Defendant's motion is ALLOWED in part and DENIED in part for the reasons that follow.
In 1998, the Veterans' Administration ("VA") deemed Plaintiff, an Army veteran, to be fifty percent disabled based on major depression and the residual effects of the delayed treatment of Lyme disease, including arthralgia, migraine headaches, and fibromyalgia (PSF ¶¶ 8, 9, 10, 152; Dkt. No. 80-2 at 44, 62; Dkt. No. 80-4 at 18-19, Dkt. No. 89 Ex. E). In September 2006, the FAA hired Plaintiff to be an Aviation Safety Inspector ("ASI") for its New England Region Engine and Propeller Directorate, Manufacturing and Inspection Office in Windsor Locks, Connecticut ("MIDO-41") (DSF ¶ 1; PSF ¶ 1). ASIs inspected manufacturers and suppliers of aircraft parts and aviation hardware, provided feedback on quality control data, issued airworthiness certificates for aircraft, investigated quality control or quality system concerns, and met with members of the aviation community and industry representatives to resolve issues and problems (DSF ¶ 2). The ASI position Plaintiff held from September 2006 to July 2011 was a bargaining unit position on the grade (FG) compensation plan with ten steps per grade (DSF ¶ 3; Dkt. No. 68 at 3 ¶¶ 21, 23).
Paul Horridge was Plaintiff's direct supervisor at MIDO-41 and Carlos Pestana, the Manufacturing and Inspection Office manager who was based in the regional office in Burlington, Massachusetts, was her second-level supervisor (Dkt. No. 70 at 1 ¶ 3; Dkt. No. 80-2 at 37, 48, 66).2 In 2009, Plaintiff explained her back condition to Pestana after Horridge directed her to obtain three doctors' notes to support her continued use of a balance ball as a chair to relieve her back and joint pain (PSF ¶ 18; Dkt. No. 80-2 at 48-50, 61; Dkt. No. 89-4 at 4). When Plaintiff applied to attend an eighteen-month leadership development program, she told Pestana she was interested in becoming a manager because she feared that her medical condition - the residual effects of untreated Lyme disease - would prevent her from performing the physical aspects of the ASI position when she was older (Dkt. No. 80-2 at 39, 60-61).
In March 2011, Plaintiff began serving in a detail (temporary) position as a manager for the FAA's Engine and Propeller Directorate's Manufacturing and Inspection Office in Burlington, Massachusetts ("MIDO-42") (DSF ¶ 6). Plaintiff's detail was extended on June 19, 2011 (DSF ¶ 7). Plaintiff alleges that, while she was acting as the manager in Burlington, she informed Pestana that she had difficulty interacting with people and requested a "purposeful way" to interact with others in order to overcome her limitations (Dkt. No. 80-2 at 62-63, 130, 156-57).
On July 3, 2011, Plaintiff was promoted to the non-bargaining unit position of Supervisory Aviation Safety Inspector in the Burlington office (DSF ¶ 8; Dkt. No. 68 at 3 ¶ 21). As a manager, Plaintiff was required to certify products and parts, support the office managerwith respect to the development of policies and standards for the manufacturing inspection program, and supervise approximately nine employees (DSF ¶ 9). Plaintiff's new position was covered by the tiered Core Compensation Pay Plan (Dkt. No. 68 at 3 ¶ 21). Her salary was in the J-Band tier of annual compensation (DSF ¶ 8; Dkt. No. 68 at 3 ¶¶ 23, 24). Pestana was Plaintiff's first-line supervisor at MIDO-42 (DSF ¶ 13; Dkt. No. 80-2 at 59-60, 129).
In 2011 and 2012, Plaintiff began to supervise and mentor HM, an employee who had a contentious relationship with Pestana and eventually brought claims of disability and race discrimination and retaliation against him (PSF ¶¶ 20, 71; Dkt. No. 89-4 at 4; Dkt. No. 95 Ex. G).3 Plaintiff's management of HM was stressful and triggered an increase in Plaintiff's depression and anxiety (Dkt. No. 80-2 at 117-19, 130-31; Dkt. No. 89-4 at 4). When Plaintiff cried as she discussed HM with Pestana, he told her to stop crying and criticized her for being unprofessional (PSF ¶¶ 74, 75, 76; Dkt. No. 80-2 at 118-19). Plaintiff explained that she suffered from depression, which was included as a basis for her VA disability rating (Dkt. No. 80-2 at 118-19). Pestana got angry and told Plaintiff to take medication (Dkt. No. 80-2 at 119-20). Thereafter, Plaintiff allegedly told Pestana that she also suffered from anxiety (Dkt. No. 80-2 at 131-32).
Plaintiff was not disciplined, given an unsatisfactory performance review, or placed on an Opportunity to Demonstrate Performance ("ODP") plan during her tenure as a supervisor at the FAA office in Burlington (DSF ¶¶14.3, 20.1, 48.2, 54.1; PSF ¶¶ 7, 61, 154). Pestana's evaluations of Plaintiff's job performance from October 2012 to September 2013 and from October 2013 to September 2014 identified her failure to collaborate with other managers as an area that needed improvement (DSF ¶¶ 19, 20, 21; PSF ¶ 28; Dkt. No. 70 ¶¶ 10, 11; Dkt. No. 70-5 at 1; Dkt. No. 70-6 at 1; Dkt. No. 80-2 at 89).4 He encouraged her to reach out to MIDO managers and to the Directorate Management Team ("DMT") for assistance (DSF ¶ 21; Dkt. No. 70-4 at 2; Dkt. No. 80-2 at 84).
Pestana's 2013 and 2014 evaluations also criticized Plaintiff for failing to actively participate in the hour-long weekly and the longer quarterly management meetings (DSF ¶¶ 19, 20; Dkt. No. 70-5 at 1; Dkt. No. 70-6 at 1; Dkt. No. 80-2 at 65-66, 89). Plaintiff defended her lack of participation in the meetings by stating that other managers mocked or criticized her when she spoke (DSF ¶ 54.2; Dkt. No. 80-2 at 90, 91, 97). She discussed that issue with Debra Yawor, a Program and Management Analyst for the FAA who coordinated DMT meetings (DSF ¶ 32). In addition, because Pestana and others chastised her for taking unpopular positions at meetings, Pestana eventually prohibited her from discussing topics at DMT meetings unless she first discussed them with him (DSF ¶ 54.3; Dkt. No. 80-2 at 90-93, 95, 97-98). That created what Plaintiff described as a "Catch-22" situation: she was encouraged to speak at meetings, but she was prohibited from speaking unless she first cleared her comments with Pestana (Dkt. No. 80-2 at 92-93). Pestana did not inform Plaintiff that she could be disciplined or reassigned for her conduct and did not issue her a verbal or written warning for her failure to collaborate with her colleagues or participate in meetings (DSF ¶¶ 14.5, 14.8, 63.17; PSF ¶ 65).
Shortly before the October 6, 2014 DMT meeting, Pestana told Plaintiff that she did not get along with anyone, no one liked her, and people complained to him about her (DSF ¶ 31; PSF ¶ 76; Dkt. No. 80-2 at 107). At the meeting, Plaintiff confronted her colleagues, asking why they criticized her behind her back (Dkt. No. 80-2 at 107-08). Afterward, according to Plaintiff,Pestana said, "How dare you [discuss my comments to you]?" while pointing his finger at her face (Dkt. No. 80-2 at 95, 108). She feared that he would touch her (Dkt. No. 80-2 at 95, 108).
On October 29, 2014, Plaintiff asked Pestana for: (1) permission to telework one day per week beginning in February 2015; and (2) specific assignments for DMT meetings that created a purpose and structure to her interactions with her colleagues (hereinafter "the purpose and structure accommodation") (DSF ¶¶ 35, 37; PSF ¶¶ 31, 34, 77, 78; Dkt. No. 89-5 ¶ 12). In support of her telework request, Plaintiff presented Pestana with a doctor's note indicating that she suffered from "chronic headaches related to cervical muscle tension which [was] exacerbated by prolonged periods of . . . driving" and recommending that she be allowed to work from home and that her work station be evaluated by an ergonomic specialist (DSF ¶ 36; PSF ¶ 34). Plaintiff explained that telework would also permit her to attend therapy sessions to stabilize her increased PTSD symptoms and depression (PSF ¶¶ 33, 34; Dkt. No. 89-5 ¶ 9).5 Plaintiff told Pestana she was requesting the purpose and structure accommodation to alleviate the manifestations of her PTSD and depression, including difficulty with social interactions, anxiety, and a flat affect in unstructured settings, such as DMT meetings (DSF ¶ 14.2; PSF ¶¶ 14, 15, 31; Dkt. No. 89-4 at 5-6; Dkt. No. 89-5 ¶ 12). According to Plaintiff, Pestana responded to the mental health related requests by saying, in a raised voice, " " (PSF ¶ 36). Pestana granted Plaintiff's request to telework beginning in February 2015, but answered Plaintiff's purpose and structure accommodation request by telling her that she needed"'training'" (DSF ¶ 39; PSF ¶ 32; Dkt. No. 89-5 ¶ 12). Pla...
To continue reading
Request your trial