Staples v. Verizon Data Servs., LLC

TODD STAPLES, Plaintiff, v. VERIZON DATA SERVICES, LLC, VERIZON NEW ENGLAND, INC.,VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC., and CHETAN GOPAL, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 18-cv-40208-ADB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

May 18, 2021

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

BURROUGHS, D.J.

In this employment discrimination case, Plaintiff Todd Staples alleges that Defendants Verizon Data Services, LLC ("VDS"), Verizon New England, Inc. ("VNEI"), Verizon Communications, Inc. ("VCI," and together with VDS and VNEI, the "Verizon Defendants"), and Chetan Gopal (together with the Verizon Defendants, "Defendants") violated multiple federal and state employment laws in connection with a workplace injury that he sustained and his subsequent termination. [ECF No. 1 ("Compl.")]. Currently before the Court is Defendants' motion for summary judgment on all nine counts of the complaint. [ECF No. 38]. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

Except as otherwise noted, the following facts are undisputed.¹

VDS is a global telecommunications company. [ECF No. 45 ¶ 1]. VNEI and VDS are subsidiaries of VCI. [Id. ¶ 3]. In 2013, Staples began working for VDS as a Quality Assurance Manager in the Information Technology ("IT") and Networking Organization. [Id. ¶ 4]. He has never worked for VNEI or VCI. [Id. ¶¶ 5-6]. About three years after he was hired, Staples was promoted to Quality Assurance principal engineer. [Id. ¶ 7]. At all relevant times, Amin Javanbakht was Staples' direct supervisor and Gopal was Staples' second-level manager. [Id. ¶¶ 10-11]. While employed by VDS, Staples was a productive, well-liked, and decorated employee. [Id. at 19]. In 2014, 2015, and 2016, he won employee "Spotlight Awards," which are awarded to exceptional employees, and his performance reviews were generally positive throughout his tenure. [Id. at 19-20].

On or around June 21, 2017, Staples seriously injured his thumb at work. [ECF No. 45 ¶ 12]. VDS granted his request for medical leave, and Staples was out of work from approximately June 21, 2017 through August 28, 2017. [Id. ¶ 13]. During his medical absence, Staples' colleagues contacted him intermittently with work-related questions, but Staples cannot recall how often this occurred. [Id. ¶ 14]. Although he remembers performing at least some work on leave, he does not remember exactly what he did and considers all the work he performed while on leave to have been "voluntary." [Id. ¶¶ 14, 16]. When he returned to workfollowing his medical leave, he returned to the same job, with the same responsibilities and pay. [Id. ¶ 18].

On or around September 16, 2017, Staples injured his back. [ECF No. 45 ¶ 19]. A few days later, Staples asked to take another medical leave, and VDS granted his request. [Id. ¶ 20]. On or around September 25, 2017, Staples sought permission to work from home, and VDS approved. [Id. ¶ 21]. He does not recall being contacted by co-workers regarding work matters between September 19 and 25, 2017, [id. ¶ 22], and the record is unclear regarding whether and how often he was contacted after he began working from home. With respect to both of Staples' injuries (thumb and back), VDS "approved all of [Staples'] requests for accommodation, leave, short and long-term disability benefits, and workers' compensation benefits." [Id. ¶ 23].

In or around November 2017, to cut costs, VDS implemented a large-scale reduction in force ("RIF") within its IT and Networking units. [ECF No. 45 ¶ 24]. Gopal says that he was instructed by his supervisor to eliminate one of his team-members and to select the individual whose departure would impact the business the least. [ECF No. 40 ¶ 25].² Gopal further avers that the pool of employees he was to consider for the RIF included Javanbakht but excluded individuals who had been recently hired but had not yet officially joined the team. [Id. ¶ 26].³ In late 2017, Staples was working exclusively on back-end infrastructure for VDS's network. [ECF No. 45 ¶ 28].⁴ According to Gopal, back-end work does not directly generate revenue. [ECFNo. 40 ¶ 27].⁵ During this time frame, Charles Clark and David Tassie were the two other principal engineers working under Gopal. [ECF No. 45 ¶ 29]. Gopal testified that all the employees from his team that were eligible for the RIF, other than Staples, were working on client-facing projects. [ECF No. 40 ¶ 31].⁶ Believing that laying off Staples would result in the least business impact (because he was not then working on client-facing projects), Gopal chose Staples for the RIF. [Id. ¶ 32].⁷

After selecting Staples for the RIF, Gopal worked with Kimberly Birk, a member of VDS's Human Resources ("HR") department, to compare Staples' skillset against those of Clark and Tassie, in an exercise called a "rate and rank" ("R&R"). [ECF No. 40 ¶ 33].⁸ According to Defendants, the R&R confirmed that terminating Staples would impact the business the least. [Id.].⁹ On November 7, 2017, after he had already chosen Staples for the layoff, Gopal sent Staples a "Quick Note" ("QN"), [ECF No. 45 ¶ 36], which read:

Given that you are one of the senior members in the team, need you figure [sic] out how to engage over and beyond the work you are doing on just openstack development. I am expecting you to reach out to other [sic] and see how you can contribute a lot more to the group.

[ECF No. 40-4 at 2]. The parties dispute what QNs are and why Gopal sent one to Staples. Defendants maintain that VDS encouraged its managers, including Gopal, to communicate with employees using QNs, which are non-disciplinary and provide fast and informal feedback. [ECF No. 40 ¶ 34]. Additionally, Defendants assert that Gopal was specifically encouraged to increase his use of QNs in and around November 2017 during an annual review. [Id. ¶ 35]. Finally, Defendants assert that even though Gopal had already selected Staples for the RIF, he sent the QN because it was possible that VDS could reverse course regarding the RIF at any time. [Id. ¶ 38]. Staples responds that Gopal's deposition testimony regarding his use of QNs was inconsistent, that QNs are not commonly used at VDS, that no one from HR instructed Gopal to send a QN to Staples, that QNs automatically become part of an employee's personnel file, and that his termination was a fait accompli by the time the QN was sent. [ECF No. 45 ¶¶ 34-35, 38; ECF No. 46-1 at 49-50]. After receiving the QN, Staples requested a meeting with Gopal the next day to discuss it. [ECF No. 45 ¶ 42]. Gopal agreed, but the meeting never took place. [Id. ¶ 43].

On November 16, 2017, Staples was notified that he would be laid off, [ECF No. 45 ¶ 44], and on December 29, 2017, he was terminated, [id. at 32].

Prior to being notified of his impending termination, Staples had never complained of disability discrimination, [ECF No. 45 ¶ 49], and he acknowledges that no one at VDS made any negative comments about his injuries, [id. ¶ 45].

B. Procedural Background

On December 15, 2018, Staples sued Defendants, alleging violations of various federal and state employment laws. [Compl.]. He brings the following nine claims: (1) a claim against the Verizon Defendants for interfering with his rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") (Count I), [id. ¶¶ 70-80]; (2) a claim against the Verizon Defendants for retaliating against him for exercising his rights under the FMLA (Count II), [id. ¶¶ 81-87]; (3) a claim against the Verizon Defendants for failing to provide him with a reasonable accommodation for his disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") (Count III), [id. ¶¶ 88-98]; (4) a claim against the Verizon Defendants for disability discrimination and/or retaliation in violation of the ADA (Count IV),¹⁰ [id. ¶¶ 99-106]; (5) a claim against the Verizon Defendants for disability discrimination in violation of the Massachusetts disability discrimination statute (Count V), [id. ¶¶ 107-20]; (6) a claim against Defendants for disability-related retaliation in violation of the Massachusetts disability discrimination statute (Count VI), [id. ¶¶ 121-25]; (7) a claim against Gopal for violating the Massachusetts disability discrimination statute (Count VII), [id. ¶¶ 126-30]; (8) a claim against Gopal for aiding and abetting the Verizon Defendants' violations of the Massachusetts disability discrimination statute (Count VIII), [id. ¶¶ 131-35]; and (9) a claim against the Verizon Defendants for retaliation in violation of the Massachusetts workers' compensation statute (Count IX), [id. ¶¶ 136-40].

On November 24, 2020, Defendants moved for summary judgment on all nine counts. [ECF No. 38]. Staples opposed on January 21, 2021, [ECF No. 47], and Defendants replied on February 5, 2021, [ECF No. 50].

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate where the moving party can show that "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). "[A]n issue is 'genuine' if it 'may reasonably be resolved in favor of either party.'" Robinson v. Cook, 863 F. Supp. 2d 49, 60 (D. Mass. 2012) (alteration in original) (quoting Vineberg v. Bissonnette, 548 F.3d 50, 56 (1st Cir. 2008)). "A fact is material if its resolution might affect the outcome of the case under the controlling law." Cochran v. Quest Software, Inc., 328 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir. 2003). Thus, "[a] genuine issue exists as to such a fact if there is evidence from which a reasonable trier could decide the fact either way." Id. By invoking summary judgment, "the moving party in effect declares that the evidence is insufficient to support the nonmoving party's case." United States v. Plat 20, Lot 17, Great Harbor Neck, New Shoreham, R.I., 960 F.2d 200, 204 (1st Cir. 1992) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986)).

"To succeed in showing that there is no genuine dispute...