Seigel v. Structure Tone Organization

Background

Jeffrey S. Seigel, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Pavarini NE Construction Co. (referred to as Pavarini), Structure Tone Organization, his supervisor Michael Melanophy, and human-resources official Robert Yardis. He asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), along with state-law claims for breach of contract and tortious interference with contract.

Seigel had worked for Pavarini since 2002. He was diagnosed with bone cancer in 2014, took medical leave, and later returned with agreed accommodations. He took additional FMLA leave in 2017 and 2018. In a May 2018 email, he raised concerns about disability discrimination, his bonuses, an alleged demotion, and extending his leave as an ADA accommodation. Pavarini terminated his employment on August 13, 2018, stating that it could not afford two business-development employees.

Summary judgment ruling

The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a decision without a trial when the evidence shows that no reasonable jury could find for the opposing party on a required issue.

Claims against Structure Tone Organization. The court dismissed all claims against Structure Tone Organization because the organization was not a distinct legal entity. It was only a collective name for companies under the Structure Tone Holdings umbrella. The Clerk was instructed to terminate Structure Tone Organization as a defendant.

ADA discrimination claims against Pavarini. The court dismissed Seigel’s ADA discrimination claims based on his 2016 and 2017 bonuses and on Pavarini’s alleged failure to promote him. Regarding the bonuses, the court found that Seigel had not shown that the payments were materially adverse employment actions or that his disabilities were the reason for them. Regarding the alleged promotion, the position was in Structure Tone Holdings’s separate Global Services unit, and Seigel offered no evidence that Pavarini controlled the decision.

ADA retaliation claim. The court denied summary judgment on Seigel’s ADA retaliation claim concerning his termination. It found evidence that his May 29, 2018 email could have been protected activity because it complained about disability discrimination and requested an accommodation. The close timing between that email and the threatened and actual termination, along with statements about his medical leaves and alleged lack of a “free ride,” created a factual issue for a jury about whether retaliation was the reason for his firing.

FMLA retaliation claims. The court dismissed the FMLA retaliation claim based on the division of Seigel’s marketing territory. It found that the evidence did not show the change was more than an alteration of job duties or that it adversely affected his employment terms.

The court denied summary judgment on the FMLA retaliation claim based on Seigel’s termination. A jury could find that his discussions about extending or taking FMLA leave were protected activity and that his leave requests were a negative factor in the termination. The court also rejected Pavarini’s argument that Seigel’s applications for disability benefits prevented him from showing that he could perform his job with reasonable accommodations. The FMLA termination-retaliation claim may proceed against Pavarini, Melanophy, and Yardis.

Breach of contract. The court denied summary judgment on Seigel’s breach-of-contract claim against Pavarini. It found a factual dispute about whether Pavarini’s Anti-Retaliation Policy formed an implied contract, whether Seigel relied on it by continuing his employment and using its complaint procedures, and whether Pavarini breached it by terminating him after his discrimination-related complaint.

Tortious interference with contract. The court dismissed Seigel’s tortious-interference claim against Melanophy and Yardis. Because they acted as agents of Pavarini, they were not third parties to Seigel’s employment relationship. Seigel also did not provide evidence that they acted outside their authority through an independent tort, malice, or self-interest.

Motion to amend

Seigel sought permission to file a second amended complaint adding STO Building Group as a defendant. The court denied that motion. The request came after the court-ordered June 26, 2020 deadline. Under the scheduling rules, Seigel had to show good cause for the delay, but the court found that he had not acted diligently. The court also found that adding STO Building Group after discovery had closed and while summary judgment was pending would unfairly prejudice the defendants by requiring additional discovery and motion practice.

Result

Judge Vincent L. Briccetti ordered that the defendants’ motion for summary judgment was granted in part and denied in part, and that Seigel’s motion for leave to amend was denied. The ADA and FMLA retaliation claims based on termination and the breach-of-contract claim may proceed; all other claims were dismissed.