Disability-related claims can take many forms, under many statutes. Here, a National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) scientist claims he was both harassed and discriminatorily denied a promotion because of his disability. The court of appeal used two different standards to decide that part of his claim can proceed, and part could not go forward.
Scientist Harassed for Requesting First-Class Treatment
Andrew Mattioda began working for NASA in 2000. He suffers from, among other things, a degenerative defect in his hips and Scheurermann’s disease of the spine, which causes uneven vertebrae growth and scoliosis. Since 2007, his orthopedist has written reasonable accommodation letters stating he must fly in premium class for flights longer than an hour because he needs to avoid prolonged sitting, be able to change positions frequently, and stretch due to physical disabilities affecting his hips and spine. By 2011, after multiple surgeries, Mattioda had informed the NASA Ames Research Center, where he worked, about all his disabilities and orthopedic limitations.
Thereafter, Mattioda claims his experience at NASA was plagued by: (a) derogatory comments from his supervisors; (b) supervisors who inhibited his work opportunities; (c) unwarranted negative job reviews; and (d) resistance to his accommodation requests. In 2011, he approached his supervisor, Dr. Timothy Lee, about an upcoming work trip and advised Lee of his physical disabilities and premium-class travel request. Lee asked why he couldn’t “just tough it out or suck it up and travel coach.”
Lee also made comments about Mattioda to other NASA employees. He had expressed that he didn’t respect Mattioda’s work, thought Mattioda was lazy, and thought Mattioda was “using his medical and disability issues to avoid work.” Other colleagues told Mattioda that Lee disparaged him so often they considered such comments “background noise.”
Lee declined to support Mattioda’s nomination for a promotion but supported other candidates. He failed to authorize a spot for Mattioda’s postdoctoral program candidate, who would have supported Mattioda’s work. He falsely stated that Mattioda couldn’t virtually present at a conference to which he was unable to travel. And he declined to involve Mattioda in projects and required him to submit an itemized travel request for a project that Lee didn’t require from another colleague.
Another supervisor named Dr. Jessie Dotson questioned whether Mattioda was “still committed to being a high-profile scientist at NASA,” criticized him for not traveling, and lowered his performance rating for not submitting a particular proposal she had previously counseled him was the “right thing to do.” Thereafter, Dotson acknowledged his failure to submit the proposal should have had no impact on his performance rating, but she denied his request to reconsider his performance rating.
In June 2016, NASA transferred Mattioda to a different division “to help calm the waters and to provide [him] with a safe space.”
Was the Promotion Denial Discriminatory?
In November 2016, a senior scientist position became available at NASA. There were seven applicants, and the selection panel ultimately narrowed their consideration to three people, including Drs. Mattioda and Scott Sandford. A highly structured evaluation process ensued. After the decision panel members individually rated the candidates, they met to discuss their ratings and unanimously decided to recommend Sandford for the position.
The panel’s recommendation was reviewed and approved because Sandford had a strong publication record, mission experience, and engagement with professional societies, while Mattioda and the other candidate did not have “backgrounds as strong as Dr. Sandford” in these areas. Mattioda was told he was not selected mainly because of his lower score and lack of “‘deep space’ mission experience.” He admitted Sandford has significantly more experience and publications because Sandford entered the field early on, so his publications were the first in the novel field.
Mattioda filed Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charges and then a complaint in federal court, claiming he was harassed and subjected to a hostile environment by NASA because of his disability and denied a promotion for the same reason. NASA asked the trial judge to dismiss the claims, finding the evidence presented couldn’t support a claim of either a harassing hostile environment or a discriminatory failure to promote. Mattioda filed an appeal.
NASA Wins One, Loses One
The court of appeal agreed that Mattioda’s claim he was discriminatorily denied a promotion because of his disability was too weak to get to a jury. It applied the familiar three-step McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. First, Mattioda had to show he is a person with a disability; otherwise qualified for employment; and suffered discrimination because of his disability. Once he did so, the burden shifted to the employer to provide a nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse action. If the employer met that burden, then the employee must show that the employer’s reason is pretextual (a cover-up for its true, discriminatory motive).
Here, it’s questionable Mattioda possessed the bare qualifications for the job. But even assuming, as the district court did, that he established a prima facie (minimally sufficient) disability discrimination case, he repeatedly conceded that NASA’s nondiscriminatory reason for not selecting him for the position—that Sandford was more qualified for the selective position—was valid. Nor was there sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding pretext. Therefore, he didn’t present a minimal claim that the failure to promote him was discriminatory.
Plenty of Proof of Harassment and Hostile Environment
The same was not true with regard to the harassment and hostile environment claim. The appeals court found sufficient evidence to allow those claims to proceed to trial. Dotson’s threat to Mattioda’s job and dismissal of his accommodation requests were explicitly linked to his disabilities. Lee denigrated him as lazy and as using his disabilities to avoid work. Mattioda alleged Lee inhibited his work opportunities and repeatedly made harassing and derogatory comments over a period of years, and he described several specific examples. For these reasons, the appeals court reversed the trial court and concluded Mattioda plausibly alleged a hostile-work-environment claim based on his disability. Mattioda v. Nelson, et al. (9th Cir., 22-15889 4/22/24).
Bottom Line
This case underscores the importance of supervisors avoiding possible comments about an employee’s disability or accommodation needs. NASA acted with scientific precision in its promotion evaluation process, but a supervisor’s loose lips may still turn this litigation into a crash landing.
Mark I. Schickman is the editor of California Employment Law Letter. You can reach him at mark@schickmanlaw.com.