Gilani v. Teneo, Inc.

Background

Asad Gilani worked for Teneo from September 26, 2016, until June 26, 2019. After injuring his back on September 25, 2017, he claimed that he asked Teneo to accommodate his disability by modifying or excusing work travel. The court had previously granted Teneo summary judgment on Gilani’s wrongful-termination, retaliation, failure-to-promote, disparate-treatment, and hostile-work-environment claims. The only claim remaining for this motion was Gilani’s claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act that Teneo failed to accommodate his disability regarding travel.

Gilani filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on July 1, 2019. Teneo argued that the accommodation claim was untimely because Gilani had not made a travel-related accommodation request that Teneo denied within the 300-day filing period. Gilani responded that he had made additional requests in October 2018, February 2019, and June 2019.

Legal standard

The court applied the summary-judgment standard. Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows no genuine dispute over a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The nonmoving party must present evidence from which a reasonable jury could rule in that party’s favor; unsupported allegations and speculation are insufficient.

For an ADA failure-to-accommodate claim, a plaintiff must show a disability, the employer’s notice of it, the ability to perform the job with a reasonable accommodation, and the employer’s refusal to provide the accommodation. The court explained that such a claim generally accrues when the requested accommodation is denied. It is a discrete event, not a continuing violation, even if the effects of the denial continue.

Court’s analysis

Because Gilani filed his EEOC charge on July 1, 2019, a travel-accommodation request had to have been denied on or after September 4, 2018 to fall within the 300-day period. The court had previously found a factual question about whether Gilani requested an accommodation in October 2017. But Gilani’s account indicated that he then continued traveling, which would have shown him that the request had been denied. That 2017 denial was outside the 300-day period.

The court considered Gilani’s assertions about three later requests. It found the June 2019 request to Brett Ayres irrelevant because Gilani did not claim that Teneo required him to travel after that request; he was on sick leave until his employment ended five days later. The court found that Gilani’s claimed October 2018 request to Steve Evans contradicted his deposition testimony, in which he said he had asked Evans about modifying travel only shortly after his 2017 injury. The court also found that Gilani’s claimed February 2019 delivery of a medical note to Rachel Head contradicted his deposition testimony that he had never given Teneo a doctor’s note or other medical documentation restricting his work responsibilities.

The court applied the “sham issue of fact” doctrine, which prevents a party from creating a factual dispute for summary judgment through affidavits that clearly contradict earlier sworn testimony. It rejected the portions of Gilani’s and Saeeda Gilani’s affidavits describing the October 2018 and February 2019 requests. The court also stated that, even if it accepted those affidavits, later requests to reconsider the same denied accommodation would not restart the 300-day filing period.

Disposition

Judge Seibel held that there was no genuine factual dispute that Gilani filed his EEOC charge more than 300 days after the relevant accommodation request was denied. The court therefore granted Teneo, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed Gilani’s ADA failure-to-accommodate claim with prejudice. The court did not reach Teneo’s alternative arguments about the duration or nature of Gilani’s disability or the period during which Teneo was required to accommodate it.

The court also rejected Gilani’s arguments concerning an initially defective summary-judgment notice, additional submissions, reopening discovery, and liability of individual supervisors under the ADA. The court stated that individual defendants cannot be held liable under the ADA and treated the federal claim as against the employer entities. To the extent Gilani’s pleadings could be read to assert a state-law failure-to-accommodate claim, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and stated that it would dismiss that claim without prejudice. The court canceled the scheduled pretrial conference and trial and closed the case.