Quiles-Quiles v. Henderson

• Decision Date: 21 February 2006
• Docket Number: No. 05-1591.,05-1591.
• Citation: 439 F.3d 1
• Parties: Genaro QUILES-QUILES, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. William J. HENDERSON, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Defendant, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

Page 1

439 F.3d 1

Genaro QUILES-QUILES, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. William J. HENDERSON, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Defendant, Appellee.

No. 05-1591.

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

Heard November 8, 2005.

Decided February 21, 2006.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

José F. Quetglas Jordán with whom Quetglas Law Offices was on brief, for appellant.

Stephen J. Boardman, Counsel of Record, with whom H.S. García, United States Attorney, Fidel A. Sevillano-Del Río, Assistant United States Attorney, Lori J. Dym, Chief Counsel and David S. Friedman, United States Postal Service, were on brief, for appellee.

Before TORRUELLA, LIPEZ, and HOWARD Circuit Judges.

HOWARD, Circuit Judge.

This appeal arises from a civil action under the Rehabilitation Act brought against the Postmaster General of the United States by Genaro Quiles-Quiles, a former postal employee. See 29 U.S.C. § 791 et seq. Quiles alleges that his Postal Service supervisors harassed him because of his disability and retaliated against him when he complained about the harassment. A jury found for Quiles on both claims and awarded him $950,000 in compensatory damages, which the district court reduced to the statutory cap of $300,000. See 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(a)(2). The Postmaster General filed a post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law, which the district court allowed. We reverse and reinstate the verdict in the statutorily-capped amount.

I.

The jury could have found the following facts. Quiles began his employment for the Postal Service in 1986 as a mail carrier. In 1995, he was assigned to the Bayamon Gardens station where he worked as a window cashier. Among his duties, he sold stamps and other postal products. His immediate supervisor was Doris Vazquez, who served under Virgilio Lopez. Luther Alston was the station manager.

Soon after Quiles moved to Bayamon Gardens station, Vazquez began to bother him. Vazquez frequently interfered with Quiles' running his window, dealing with customers, and handling the cash drawer money. This conduct made Quiles "anxious and nervous" because he was afraid that he would be held responsible for any accounting errors. Quiles complained to Lopez, who did nothing to stop the interference.

On October 4, 1997, Vazquez screamed at Quiles because he had gone to lunch "without authorization." The incident took place in front of several employees and customers. Immediately thereafter, Quiles suffered a panic attack and sought psychiatric help for anxiety and depression. Quiles missed three days of work because of his distress. When Quiles returned, he presented to Lopez a certificate from his psychiatrist stating that the absence was medically necessary.

After Quiles returned to work, Vazquez interrupted his work more frequently. Quiles complained on several occasions, but neither Lopez nor Alston intervened. On March 5, 1998, Quiles was crossing the street outside the post office when (so the jury could have found) Vazquez drove at him in her truck. Quiles reported the incident to his supervisors and the police. Afterwards, Quiles entered a state of "acute anxiety."

As a result of Quiles' worsening mental condition, his psychiatrist prescribed a week-long leave of absence and recommended that he be reassigned from his cashier duties after returning to work. Quiles brought Lopez a sealed envelope containing the medical certificate referencing this information. Lopez opened the envelope, read the medical certificate, and brought it to Vazquez. Vazquez read the certificate and laughingly exclaimed, "He is crazy!" Lopez laughed as well. When Quiles informed Alston of the incident, Alston told Quiles to "stop acting."

From this point forward, Vazquez and Lopez called Quiles "crazy" on a daily basis. They also constantly "joked" in front of coworkers and customers about the fact that Quiles saw a psychiatrist and took medication for his condition. This commentary included remarks about the effect that the medication had on Quiles' ability to have sexual relations with his wife. In addition, Lopez often remarked that Quiles posed a "great risk" to the other employees because he was under on-going psychiatric treatment. Alston frequently stated that Quiles was a "risk to the floor" because he was undergoing psychiatric treatment. And Vazquez remarked several times a day that Quiles should "not be working" in the post office because he was "crazy."

On April 14, 1998, Quiles filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Office of the Postal Service, claiming that Vazquez, Lopez, and Alston had harassed him because of his mental disability. Through the remainder of 1998 and 1999, the harassment and derogatory comments continued. Two weeks after Quiles filed his EEO complaint, Alston threw Quiles out of his office, screamed at him, and slammed the door as Quiles was leaving. Several weeks later, Lopez stopped a union grievance meeting between Quiles and a shop steward and shouted at Quiles in front of coworkers. Alston approached Quiles in the bathroom and told him that he would "soon be without a job," called Quiles a "punk," challenged Quiles to a fight, and grabbed his (own) crotch while calling Quiles a "coward."

Quiles' mental condition deteriorated. On March 31, 2000, Quiles' psychiatrist found him totally disabled because of severe depression, and Quiles began a leave of absence. Quiles was hospitalized for several days during this period to treat his depression. A year later, Quiles returned to his position because of financial need. He worked until August 14, 2003, when Vazquez again called him "crazy." This triggered a relapse of Quiles' depression and required another hospitalization. He has since been totally disabled.

Following the close of evidence, the Postmaster General moved for judgment as a matter of law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a). The district court denied the motion and submitted the case to the jury. After the jury returned a verdict for Quiles, the district court allowed the Postmaster General's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(b), and entered judgment against Quiles. See Quiles-Quiles v. Herndon, No. 99-cv-01868 (D.P.R. Mar. 22, 2005) (Dist.Ct.Op.). The court rejected the jury's disability-harassment finding because Quiles had not demonstrated that he was disabled. Id. at 8-11. The court also rejected the jury's retaliation finding because Quiles had failed to prove either that he was subjected to a hostile work environment, or that any harassment he suffered was causally related to his filing of an EEO complaint. Id. at 11-13.

II.

We review the ruling on a motion for judgment as a matter of law de novo. Crowley v. L.L. Bean, Inc., 303 F.3d 387, 393 (1st Cir.2002). Our review is "weighted toward preservation of the jury verdict" because a verdict should be set aside only if the jury failed to reach the only result permitted by the evidence. Id.

As a Postal Service employee, Quiles' claim arises under the Rehabilitation Act, not the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). See Mannie v. Potter, 394 F.3d 977, 982 (7th Cir.2005). Nevertheless, the liability standards are the same under each statute. See 29 U.S.C. § 791(g); Calero-Cerezo v. United States Dep't of Justice, 355 F.3d 6, 11 n. 1 (1st Cir.2004). Therefore, "the caselaw construing the ADA generally pertains equally to claims under the Rehabilitation Act." Calero-Cerezo, 355 F.3d at 19.

A. Disability Harassment

The district court instructed the jury that, to succeed on a claim of disability harassment, Quiles had to prove that he was (1) disabled, (2) that he was subjected to a hostile environment, and (3) that the hostility was directed at him because of his disability.¹ The Postmaster General has not challenged this instruction either below or on appeal; therefore, it provides the standard against which we measure the sufficiency of the evidence. See Rodriguez-Torres v. Caribbean Forms Mfr., 399 F.3d 52, 58 (1st Cir.2005).

In its post-trial ruling, the district court rejected Quiles' disability-harassment claim because Quiles had failed to adduce sufficient evidence to ground a finding that he was disabled. The Postmaster General defends the district court's ruling by arguing that Quiles not only failed to establish he was disabled, but also that he failed to introduce sufficient evidence of either a hostile environment or discriminatory animus on the part of his harassers. See McMillan v. Mass. Soc. for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 140 F.3d 288, 298 n. 3 (1st Cir.1998) (stating that the court of appeals may affirm a judgment as a matter of law on any ground supported by the record). We begin by considering whether the evidence was sufficient for the jury to conclude that Quiles was disabled.

An individual is disabled if he (1) has a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more major life activities, (2) has a record of such impairment, or (3) is regarded as having such an impairment. See Calero-Cerezo, 355 F.3d at 20. Quiles contends that the evidence was adequate for the jury to find him disabled under any of these three recognized liability theories. We proceed directly to the third category.

Quiles argues that the Postal Service regarded him as disabled because his supervisors perceived his mental impairment as substantially limiting his ability to engage in the major life activity of working.² The Postmaster General responds that Quiles failed to show, as he must, that his supervisors perceived him as unable to work in a broad class of jobs. See Sullivan v. Neiman Marcus, Group Inc., 358 F.3d 110, 117 (1st Cir.2004). The district court accepted the Postmaster General's reasoning, see Dist. Ct. Op. at 10, but we disagree.

The purpose of protecting those who are regarded as disabled from discrimination is to prohibit employers from relying on "stereotypic assumptions not truly indicative of individual ability." See Sutton, 527...