Darcangelo v. Verizon Maryland, Inc. ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1771
FRANCES DARCANGELO,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
VERIZON MARYLAND, INCORPORATED,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
BELL ATLANTIC,
Defendant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
MARIA WALSH,
Movant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge.
(CA-02-816-WDQ)
Submitted: June 6, 2006 Decided: July 10, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Morris E. Fischer, AIR RIGHTS CENTER, Bethesda, Maryland, for
Appellant. Karen M. Wahle, Shannon M. Barrett, Toby Heytens,
O’MELVENY & MYERS, L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
Frances Darcangelo, a forty-nine year old woman suffering from
bipolar disorder, brought this action against her employer, Verizon
Maryland, Incorporated (“Verizon”), asserting that Verizon
terminated her because of her disability in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), as amended, 42
U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. The district court initially denied
Verizon’s motion for summary judgment by a written opinion dated
September 24, 2003, but later granted the motion in its entirety by
a second written opinion dated June 7, 2005. We shall assume
familiarity with the facts set forth in the district court’s
opinions.
The district court’s decision to grant summary judgment is
subject to de novo review, with all inferences drawn in favor of
the non-moving party. Haulbrook v. Michelin North America, Inc.,
252 F.3d 696, 702 (4th Cir. 2001). A plaintiff asserting wrongful
discharge under the ADA must demonstrate that (1) she is disabled;
(2) she was otherwise qualified for her position; and (3) her
discharge “occurred under circumstances that raise a reasonable
inference of unlawful discrimination.” Id. (internal citations
omitted).
To establish that she is otherwise qualified under the second
prong, the plaintiff must show that she, “with or without
reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of
3
the employment position . . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 12111. Here, as
Darcangelo conceded, her position as central office technician
“required her to spend ninety percent of her time on the telephone
with co-workers in remote locations, discussing installation and/or
provisioning of equipment.” Appellant Br. at 8. Interaction with
co-workers was therefore an essential function of her position.
Moreover, Verizon’s Code of Business Conduct directs employees to
be “respectful, cooperative, and helpful toward customers,
suppliers, our co-workers, employees and the general public” and to
refrain from acting in “an abusive, threatening, discriminatory,
harassing or obscene manner toward any employee or others with whom
we come in contact during the course of business.” J.A. 120.
As the district court concluded, the record is replete with
instances of Darcangelo’s threatening, abusive, and harassing
behavior toward her co-workers and supervisors in the course of
performing her duties. Indeed, Darcangelo undertook egregious
actions admittedly designed to provoke her co-workers and
supervisors, such as walking out of meetings and hanging up on co-
workers; posting a photo of her supervisor’s head placed in the
center of a rifle target; and aiming racially-charged terms, racial
slurs, offensive language, and derogatory nicknames at her co-
workers and supervisors. Darcangelo’s aggressive and antagonistic
behavior thus demonstrated her complete inability to interact with
4
others in a courteous manner, as required by her position and
Verizon’s Code of Business Conduct.
Moreover, Darcangelo failed to show that she could perform the
essential functions of her position even when given reasonable
accommodation. Darcangelo’s expert opined that Verizon could have
limited her interactions to supervisors sympathetic to her bipolar
condition. However, the ADA does not require Verizon to subject
its employees to Darcangelo’s abusive behavior, which, not
surprisingly, created considerable anxiety within her work
environment, even if that behavior was related to her bipolar
disorder. See Jones v. Am. Postal Workers Union Nat’l, 192 F.3d
417, 429 (4th Cir. 1999) (“The law is well settled that the ADA is
not violated when an employer discharges an individual based upon
the employee’s misconduct, even if the misconduct is related to a
disability.” (internal citations omitted)). Accordingly, we affirm
the district court’s decision to grant Verizon’s motion for summary
judgment.
AFFIRMED
5