Godfrey v. Globe Newspaper Co. (2010)

See Richardson, 594 F.3d at 81 (“ ‘[T]he law does not require an employer to accommodate a disability by foregoing an essential function of the position or by reallocating essential functions to make other workers’ jobs more onerous.’”) (alterations in original) (quoting Mulloy, 460 F.3d at 153 ); Godfrey v. Globe Newspaper Co., 457 Mass. 113 , 928 N.E.2d 327, 336 (2010) (“Neither elimination of an essential duty from a position nor assignment to an unrelated position are ‘r…

Godfrey v. Globe Newspaper Co., 928 N.E.2d 327, 333 (Mass. 2010) (citing Mass. Gen.

See Godfrey, 457 Mass. at 120 (“If the accommodation proposed by the employee appears unduly onerous, the employer has an obligation to work with the employee to determine whether another accommodation is possible”).

However, "summary judgment on an employment discrimination claim may at times be appropriate," Godfrey v. Globe Newspaper Co., 457 Mass. 113, 119 (2010), including where a plaintiff fails to bear his burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination.

See 42 U.S.C. § 12112 (b)(5)(A); M.G.L. c. 151B, § 4(16); see also Murray, 821 F.3d at 84 ; Godfrey v. Globe Newspaper Co., 457 Mass. 113, 119-20 (2010).

See Godfrey v. Globe Newspaper Co., 457 Mass. 113, 124 (2010) ("Neither elimination of an essential duty from a position nor assignment to an unrelated position are 'reasonable accommodations' within the meaning of G.

Similarly, a plaintiff alleging a chapter 151B claim must demonstrate that he “is ‘handicapped’ within the meaning of [chapter 151B]; that he is a ‘qualified handicapped person’ capable of performing the essential functions of his job either without accommodation or with a reasonable accommodation; and that he was subject to an adverse employment action because of his handicap.” Godfrey v. Globe Newspaper Co., 928 N.E.2d 327, 334 (Mass. 2010).

“An essential function is a ‘fundamental job dut[y]’ of the employment position the individual with a disability holds or desires.” Id. at 34 (alteration in original) (quoting Laurin v. Providence Hosp., 150 F.3d 52, 56-57 (1st Cir. 1998)). “[W]hether a particular job duty is an ‘essential job function’ is ‘intensely fact-based,’ requiring ‘individualized inquiry and . . . appropriate findings of fact.’” Godfrey v. Globe Newspaper Co., Inc., 928 N.E.2d 327, 334 (Mass. 2010) …

Godfrey v. Globe Newspaper Co., 457 Mass. 113, 119 (2010). "[T]he court does not pass upon the credibility of witnesses or the weight of the evidence [or] make [its] own decision of facts." Shawmut Worcester County Bank, N.A. v. Miller, 398 Mass. 273, 281 (1986), quoting from Attorney Gen. v. Bailey, 386 Mass. 367, 370 (1982).

As such, the trial judge erred in concluding that despite the city’s articulated, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions, the jury, nevertheless, “could have found that the [city] discriminated against [McLaughlin] by fabricating a rule prohibiting the use of inhalers in order to thwart the plaintiff’s efforts to resume his prior position of fire captain in the Lowell Fire Department.” To establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination on the basis of handicap, M…

Godfrey v. Globe Newspaper Co., Inc., 457 Mass. 113, 119 (2010).

Godfrey v. Globe Newspaper Co., Inc., 457 Mass. 113, 119 (2010).

Godfrey v. Globe Newspaper Co., Inc., 457 Mass. 113, 119 (2010); see also O’Connor v. Redstone, 452 Mass. 537, 540 (2008) (in deciding motion for summary judgment, “[t]he judge views the evidence indulgently in favor of the nonmoving party and without considering witness credibility, weighing the evidence, or making findings of fact”).

Godfrey v. Globe Newspaper Co., Inc., 457 Mass. 113, 119 (2010); see also O’Connor v. Redstone, 452 Mass. 537, 540 (2008) (in deciding motion for summary judgment, court must “view[] the evidence indulgently in favor of the nonmoving party and without considering witness credibility, weighing the evidence, or making findings of fact”).

STANDARD OF REVIEW "Summary judgment is appropriate where there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Helfman v. Northeastern Univ. 485 Mass. 308 , 314 (2020), quoting Godfrey v. Globe Newspaper Co., 457 Mass. 113, 118-19 (2010).

Thus, a jury could find that plaintiff made “at least a facial showing that reasonable accommodation is possible.” Godfrey v. Globe Newspaper Co., 457 Mass. 113, 120 (2010).

LEGAL STANDARD “Summary judgment is appropriate where there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Helfman v. Northeastern Univ., 485 Mass. 308 , 314 (2020), quoting Godfrey v. Globe Newspaper Co., 457 Mass. 113, 118-19 (2010).

LEGAL STANDARD "Summary judgment is appropriate where there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Helfman v. Northeastern Univ.• 485 Mass. 308 ,314 (2020), quoting Godfrey v. Globe Newspaper Co., 457 Mass. 113, 118-19 (2010).

Moreover, “[i]n deciding a motion for summary judgment, the motion judge must consider all factual allegations, and draw all reasonable inferences therefrom, in favor of the nonmoving party.” Godfrey v. Globe Newspaper Co., Inc., 457 Mass. 113, 119 (2010).

However, the defendants' rule 9A (b) (5) statement contains the assertion, admitted by the plaintiff, see Godfrey v. Globe Newspaper Co., 457 Mass. 113, 121 (2010), that the person who replaced the plaintiff was older than the plaintiff.

STANDARD OF REVIEW "Summary judgment is appropriate where there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Helfman v. Northeastern Univ., 485 Mass. 308 , 314 (2020) (quoting Godfrey v. Globe Newspaper Co., 457 Mass. 113, 118-19 (2010)).

Standard of Review "Summary judgment is appropriate where there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Reifman v. Northeastem Univ., 485 Mass. 308 ,314 (2020) (quoting Godfrey v. Globe Newspaper Co., 457 Mass. 113, 118-19 (2010)).

Newspaper Co., Inc., 928 N.E.2d 327, 333 (Mass. 2010) (citing Mass. Gen.

Disability Discrimination (Counts II and III) Massachusetts law prohibits an employer from “dismiss[ing] from employment or refus[ing] to hire, rehire or advance in employment or otherwise discriminate against, because of his handicap, any person alleging to be a qualified handicapped person, capable of performing the essential functions of the position involved with reasonable accommodation, unless the employer can demonstrate that the accommodation required to be made to t…

Disability Discrimination – Failure to Accommodate (Count VI) “A ‘qualified handicapped person’ is entitled to a ‘reasonable accommodation’ that will enable [her] to perform the essential functions of his job, so long as the accommodation does not place an undue burden or hardship on the employer.” Godfrey v. Globe Newspaper Co., 457 Mass. 113, 119 (2010) (citing Mass. Gen.

Standard of Review “Summary judgment is appropriate where there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Helfman v. Northeastern Univ., 485 Mass. 308 , 314 (2020) (quoting Godfrey v. Globe Newspaper Co., 457 Mass. 113, 118-19 (2010)).

Godfrey v. Globe Newspaper Co., 928 N.E.2d 327, 334 (Mass. 2010).

"Summary judgment is appropriate where there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Godfrey v. Globe Newspaper Co., 457 Mass. 113, 118-119 (2010).

Reasonable Accommodation Under State Law “A ‘qualified handicapped person’ is entitled to a ‘reasonable accommodation’ that will enable him to perform the essential functions of his job, so long as the accommodation does not place an undue burden or hardship on the employer.” Godfrey v. Globe Newspaper Co., 928 N.E.2d 327, 333 (Mass. 2010) (citing Mass. Gen.

Moreover, "[i]n deciding a motion for summary judgment, the motion judge must consider all factual allegations, and draw all reasonable inferences therefrom, in favor of the nonmoving party." Godfrey v. Globe Newspaper Co., Inc., 457 Mass. 113, 119 (2010); see also Willitts v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Boston, 411 Mass. 202, 202 (1991) (any conflicts in the supporting materials are answered in favor of the non-movant).

Moreover, "[On deciding a motion for summary judgment, the motion judge must consider all factual allegations, and draw all reasonable inferences therefrom, in favor of the nonmoving party." Godfrey v. Globe Newspaper Co., Inc., 457 Mass. 113, 119 (2010); see also Willitts v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Boston, 411 Mass. 202, 202 (1991) (any conflicts in the supporting materials are answered in favor of the non-movant).

Moreover, "pin deciding a motion for summary judgment, the motion judge must consider all factual allegations, and draw all reasonable inferences therefrom, in favor of the nonmoving party." Godfrey v. Globe Newspaper Co., Inc., 457 Mass. 113, 119 (2010); see also Willitts v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Boston, 411 Mass. 202, 202 (1991) (any conflicts in the supporting materials are answered in favor of the non-movant).

See Godfrey v. Globe Newspaper Co., 457 Mass. 113, 119 (2010) ("In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the motion judge must consider all factual allegations, and draw all reasonable inferences therefrom, in favor of the nonmoving party").

Legal Standard "Summary judgment is appropriate where there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Godfrey v. Globe Newspaper Co., Inc. , 457 Mass. 113, 118-19 (2010).

“To establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination on the basis of handicap under G.L. c. 151B, § 4(16), the plaintiff must show that he is ‘handicapped’ within the meaning of the statute; that he is a ‘qualified handicapped person’ capable of performing the essential functions of his job either without accommodation or with a reasonable accommodation; and that he was subject to an adverse employment action because of his handicap.” Godfrey v. Globe Newspaper Co.,…

Godfrey v. Globe Newspaper Co., Inc., 457 Mass. 113, 119 (2010).

Godfrey v. Globe Newspaper Co., 457 Mass. 113, 119 (2010).

Discussion, 12 In reviewing a grant of summary judgment, “we assess the record de novo and take the facts, together with all *371 reasonable inferences to be drawn from them, in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” See Bulwer v. Mount Auburn Hosp., 86 Mass. App. Ct. 316, 318 (2014), citing Godfrey v. Globe Newspaper Co., 457 Mass. 113, 119 (2010). a.

Godfrey v. Globe Newspaper Co., Inc., 457 Mass. 113, 119 (2010).

Globe Newspaper Co., Inc., 457 Mass. 113, 119 (2010).

Godfrey v. Globe Newspaper Co., Inc., 457 Mass. 113, 119 (2010).

Godfrey v. Globe Newspaper Co., Inc., 457 Mass. 113, 119 (2010).

See Kourouvacilis v. General Motors Corp., 410 Mass. 706, 716 (1991); Godfrey v. Globe Newspaper Co., 457 Mass. 113, 119 (2010); Mass.R.Civ.P. 56(c), as amended, 436 Mass. 1404 (2002). “[A] party moving for summary judgment in a case in which the opposing party will have the burden of proof at trial is entitled to summary judgment if he demonstrates, by reference to material described in [rule] 56(c), unmet by countervailing materials, that the party opposing the motion has …

See Godfrey v. Globe Newspaper Co., 457 Mass. 113, 120 (2010).

See Godfrey v. Globe Newspaper Co ., 457 Mass. 113 , 119, 928 N.E.2d 327 (2010).

See Godfrey v. Globe Newspaper Co., 457 Mass. 113, 119 (2010). 3.

See Godfrey v. Globe Newspaper Co., 457 Mass. 113, 119 (2010). "[T]he court does not 'pass upon the credibility of witnesses or the weight of the evidence [or] make [its] own decision of facts.'" Shawmut Worcester County Bank, N.A. v. Miller, 398 Mass. 273, 281 (1986), quoting Attorney Gen. v. Bailey, 386 Mass. 367, 370 , cert. denied, 459 U.S. 970 (1982). 1.

See Godfrey v. Globe Newspaper Co., 457 Mass. 113, 119 (2010). "[T]he court does not 'pass upon the credibility of witnesses or the weight of the evidence [or] make [its] own decision of facts.'" Shawmut Worcester County Bank, N.A. v. Miller, 398 Mass. 273, 281 (1986), quoting Attorney Gen. v. Bailey, 386 Mass. 367, 370 , cert. denied, 459 U.S. 970 (1982).

See Godfrey v. Globe Newspaper Co., 457 Mass. 113, 120 (2010) (“Once an employee ‘makefs] at least a facial showing that reasonable accommodation is possible,’ the burden of proof [of both production and persuasion] shifts to the employer to establish that a suggested accommodation would impose an undue hardship” [citations omitted]).

See Godfrey v. Globe Newspaper Co., 457 Mass. 113, 118-119 (2010). 2 The thirty-day cure period could be extended if the default could not be cured within thirty days even with the exercise of due diligence.