Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
No. 97-1963
FRANKLIN RALPH,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
Defendant - Appellant.
____________________
____________________
Before
_____________________
Thomas E. Shirley,
___________________
with whom
____________________
February 2, 1998
____________________
____________________
SKINNER,
SKINNER,
Senior District
Judge.
Senior District
Judge.
________________________
The
plaintiff
originally
brought
this
Lucent Technologies,
action against
Inc. (Lucent),
his
in the
former
employer,
Superior Court
for
Massachusetts Commission
relief
sought by
injunction
(1)
Against
the terms
permitting
of
him
Lucent
to
toll the
90-day
Discrimination
the complaint
to
return
was a
to
deadline for
applying
The plaintiff
ch. 151B,
States
The
relies on Massachusetts
The
temporary
work
benefits.
12111 et seq.
_______
(MCAD).
with
requiring
for various
General Laws,
Act, 42 U.S.C.
case to the
United
of citizenship.
Lucent
is
Delaware corporation
having
regular place
of
business in Massachusetts.
The
success on
district
made findings
to the defendant.
It
"provisional" period
applying for
court
of
likelihood
of
absence of hardship
of four
weeks and
work for a
for
So much of
-2-
The
jurisdiction
district
of
jurisdiction.
this
court
had
original
action,
and
this
28 U.S.C.
federal
court
has
question
appellate
STANDARDS OF REVIEW
STANDARDS OF REVIEW
We have
extensively
issuance of a preliminary
addressed the
criteria
the
typical
case,
party
the
of appellate
In
for
seeking
preliminary
(1) a
the
injunctive
relief
substantial likelihood
merits;
irreparable
withheld;
(2)
harm
if
(3)
must
of success
significant
the
favorable
between
the
risk
on
of
injunction
is
balance
of
prove:
injunction
lack of
and
the
In
its
brief,
likelihood of success
F.3d
(citations omitted).
Lucent
identifies
the
plaintiff's
injury as the
this appeal.
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
verified
to the district
underlying
issue in
claim is
these allegations
not at
as relevant
court.
this appeal,
background to
MCAD and
While
the
we consider
our resolution
of
-3-
this appeal.
the plaintiff-appellee.
The
plaintiff
was
employed
by
Master Tradesworker,"
i.e.,
Lucent's
Valley
Merrimack
Massachusetts,
Communications
and
he
Workers
bargaining agreement.
leave at
full pay
an expert
was
of
Lucent
He
in
represented
by
America
union
its
was a "Composite
carpenter,
facility
and
assigned
North
under
Andover,
local
to
of
the
collective
under his
employer's "Sickness
and Accident
In April of
went on
He had
Plaintiff
attributes his
According
September of
harassment
to a
1996, the
by his
plaintiff had
with the
his male
MCAD in
to sexual
supervisor for
neither
filed
been subjected
complaint he
homosexual
nor
child molester.
a child
The co-
molester.
The plaintiff is
The harassment
At one point,
plaintiff's
Amirault,
locker.
This
man convicted
graffiti was
of
child
-4-
was inscribed on
reference
molestation in
the
to Tookie
highly
publicized case.
name.
requests
even participated in
it
anymore,
the harassment.
instance of harassment
him by this
in his underwear.
He
and went
home.
Thereafter,
the plaintiff
made
In
Danielian,
July
of
1996, the
psychologist.
or November
psychiatrist
of
at
1996, he
plaintiff
He
was
consulted
diagnosed
stress disorder.
consulted
Newburyport
with Rowen
hospital.
Dr. Jack
with
major
In late October
Hochstedler,
Dr.
Hochstedler
He sought and
to return to work
in April.
Dr. Morin, a
psychiatrist hired by
Lucent,
recommended
that
he
be
kept
away from
his
alleged
Dr. Waugh, a
Medical Director at
authorized
the
Lucent's Merrimack
plaintiff's return
to
serves as
Valley facility
work
on May
23,
finally
1997.
-5-
Consistent
with
the
plaintiff's
wishes
and
Dr.
Morin's
recommendation, he
was assigned to
a new
a new
to 3:00
p. m.
His
first day,
human
the
May 23,
before
and ordered
him to
stay away
from his
former co-workers.
May 27.
with the plaintiff's former co-workers and told them to stay away
from him.
No disciplinary
old work
(or "Tookie's
The plaintiff
degree that
he could
was upset by
not continue
the inscription to
with work.
He
such a
reported to
8:10 a. m.
May 28.
The
-6-
week.
He used
30.
on the following
Monday, June 2.
emotionally distraught
supervisor
and went
at about 8:30
a. m.
home with
the
consent of
his
names, the
By
a subsequent affidavit
wife of one of
the
As
he
departed, the
plaintiff had
some conversation
vacation
being
back at work.
The
plaintiff
Wednesday, June 4.
remained
home
the
following
day,
spoke to
Dr.
Waugh on
plaintiff
should
spoke
Dr.
to
the
telephone.
Waugh
and
an
employee
McLaughlin.
They agreed
Later
of
that
the
Lucent's
benefits
he would need
input
from the
plaintiff's
treating
physicians
in
order
to
Mr.
plaintiff and
Bartley
told him
and Lina
McLaughlin then
he would need
Dr. Waugh's
telephoned the
clearance to
-7-
On Thursday, June
Dr.
Waugh refused
Ms. McLaughlin
to authorize
then met
with
his
him
return.
and told
for work.
Mr. Bartley
him
he had
and
three
options:
(i) apply
for a disability
pension pursuant
(iii)
take an
additional unpaid
leave for up to
disability
for the
Later
Dr. Danielian
plaintiff.
that
day,
and informed
Dr. Danielian
the
him
plaintiff's
of
called
the
Dr.
counsel
ultimatum put
Waugh.
Dr.
called
to
the
Danielian
the decision
to turn the
plaintiff away.
On
Monday, June
9,
afforded the
accommodation of a
temporary return to
work part-
time.
At
and
affidavits
from the
record reveals a
plaintiff's
series of letters
treating
therapists, Dr.
1.
The plaintiff
is fit to go
to work, part-time at
-8-
as he adjusts
2.
The
medication.
3.
of returning to Lucent is
4.
condition.1
A psychiatrist,
Lucent's medical
plaintiff
The
plaintiff's
therapists
were qualified
in
their
DISCUSSION
DISCUSSION
A.
to the
issuance of
a preliminary
injunction."
American Auto.
______________
merits
of
Ralph's
underlying
ADA
and
state-law
disability-
____________________
The
defendant's
therapists
In any
case, it would
the plaintiff
Lucent.
contention
on a
at
oral
argument
is contradicted by
another
job after
the
this record.
search for
that
to send
24 years
at
-9-
afforded Ralph's
whether Ralph is
entitled to injunctive
status
quo
complaint.2
injury
pending
relief to preserve
resolution
of
his
preliminary injunction
to
prevent
during the
the
accommodation;" and
pendency of
a complaint
disability by providing
9.
MCAD
irreparable
before the
MCAD is
Accommodation
original
the
of a
authorized by the
12111(9)(B), and
by
district judge.
186, 192
finding a
likelihood of
success on the
merits of
warranted in
this limited
complaint.
B.
"Though
mistake of
law is
requires no elaboration,
is
a fuzzier concept.
a rubric
that
abuse of discretion
That inquiry is case-
13 [(1st. Cir.
1993)]; Narragansett
____________
usually
court,
entails proof
in
ignored
making
the
pertinent
that
the nisi
challenged
elements
prius
ruling,
deserving
____________________
Success
on the merits
of the underlying
Morgan v. Massachusetts
______
_____________
Gen. Hosp., 901 F.2d 186 (1st Cir. 1990); Doe by Doe v. City of
__________
__________
________
Bellville, Ill., 119 F.3d 563, 570 (7th Cir. 1997).
_______________
conclusion by the
Court.
Oncale v. Sundowner
The contrary
the Supreme
F.3d 118
______
________________________________
The matter is
venture no opinion.
-10-
significant
weight,
criteria,
or,
appropriate
and
plainly
erred
considered
though
no
in
improper
assessing
inappropriate
balancing
them.
all
factors,
See
and we
F.3d 12, 16
federal court
must
a preliminary injunction.
find
cognizable
threat
"I also
find that
irreparable harm.
by
is
Ralph has
Though
do not rise to
of irreparable harm,
different for
two
significant role
evidence suggests
essential to his
Ralph's case
reasons.
First, the
Lucent played a
in his breakdown.
that returning to
recovery.
disability
of
These
work.
demonstrated
losses occasioned
the level
Second,
Medical
work is
Ralph's
longer he is out
circumstances
distinguish
of
We agree.
C.
Preemption
__________
The defendant's
plaintiff's claim
is
other
preempted
the
collective
things, provides
a grievance
Labor Management
Act,
fails,
because the
however,
by
is that the
301, 29
present
185.
controversy
-11-
which, among
and arbitration
U.S.C.
bargaining
procedure.
This argument
concerns the
which exist
independently of the
require interpretation of
that agreement.
Livadas
_______
do not
v. Bradshaw,
________
512
The cases
cited by the
In
provisos in the
agreement.
itself gave
of a collective
We note:
"It
is doubtful
whether without
the last
bargaining
quoted
proviso, [defendant]
plausible
claim
of
Massachusetts has an
would have
federal
any
preemption.
independent interest in
proviso the
elements
of
both [of
plaintiff's]
independent
of
bargaining
the
to be
agreement
provisions."
Id. at 41.
__
487 (5th
Cir. 1996),
because the
litigated issues
a finding
were specifically
of preemption
covered in
the
rights founded
not only in
a state
statute, but
in a
federal
rights
are
not to
be
preempted by
the
collective bargaining
agreement.
-12-
Secondly,
the
defendant
asserts
Security
Act
preemption
Employment
Retirement Income
1144(A).
by
(ERISA), 29
the
U.S.C.
v. Nadal______
State
laws that
remote,
or
have
merely a
peripheral
"tenuous,
connection
with
. .
Such
respect
to
applicability. . . .
that
state
by ERISA,
laws
is
one
as such is
of
general
not preempted
label of the
requires
general
Absent precedent on a
related problem,
merely
of
law, however.
the case
law
applicability, and
is normally
"tenuous,
remote,
closely
whether a
ERISA
plan or is
or
peripheral"
particular case.
See also Rozzell v. Security Servs., Inc., 38 F.3d 819 (5th Cir.
________ _______
______________________
1994);
Angone v.
______
F. Supp. 377,
380 (N.D.
Ill. 1994).
In
this
case, the
only
impact on Lucent's
benefits.
extension of time to
No variation in
the terms of
has held that the time limits under an ERISA plan are
equitable tolling.
Doe v.
___
make
subject to
Wis., 112 F.3d 869, 875-878 (7th Cir. 1997), and the extension of
____
time in
this case
ERISA preemption."
Moreover,
that
ERISA preempts
the core
concern underlying
there is
no authority
rights under
a federal
_______
for the
proposition
statute.
In this
-13-
in aid
of a
reasonable accommodation
under the
Americans With
Disabilities Act.
-14-
D.
Reasonable Accommodation
________________________
The
defendant
argues
that
it
has
already
made
him 52 weeks of leave with pay, plus changing his work assignment
and supervisor.
continuing
one, however,
and
not exhausted
by
one effort.
Bultemeyer v. Fort Wayne Community Sch., 100 F.3d 1281, 1285 (7th
__________
_________________________
Cir. 1996).
made it clear
the
reasonable and
in accord
with the
Americans With
Disabilities
Act.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSION
of discretion.
Accordingly, we
law or an abuse
court.
Costs
of
the
appeal shall
defendant-appellant.
-15-
be
assessed
against the