Sandy Harris, Jr., a Change Analyst for National Grid, was employed in Massachusetts but traveled to Ohio and California during the COVID-19 pandemic in July 2020. Upon returning from vacation, Harris informed his supervisor he would not return to his Massachusetts territory, citing COVID-19 concerns, and requested to work remotely from another state. Although the company had a policy allowing temporary remote work outside a service territory, it required prior supervisory approval, which Harris had not obtained. The company's Director of Human Resources issued an ultimatum: Harris must return to his territory immediately or be deemed to have resigned. It was only after receiving this ultimatum that Harris first claimed he had preexisting medical conditions placing him at higher risk for COVID-19 and requested a reasonable accommodation to work off-site. He provided a brief doctor's letter stating he would benefit from remote work but did not explain why he could not work remotely from his home within his territory. When Harris failed to provide sufficient documentation by the deadline, National Grid terminated his employment on August 19. Harris sued, claiming unlawful retaliation under Massachusetts law and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) for asserting his right to accommodation.
The First Circuit reviewed the grant of summary judgment de novo, focusing on whether Harris could prove the necessary causal connection between his protected activity and his termination. The court noted that Harris's retaliation claims required him to show that his request for accommodation or FMLA relief caused his firing. The record clearly established that National Grid had already decided to terminate Harris if he refused to return to his territory before Harris ever asserted his protected rights. The company informed Harris of this decision on July 30, and it was only in response to that ultimatum that Harris first claimed to have a medical condition requiring accommodation. The court relied on the principle that 'causation moves forward, not backwards,' citing Pearson v. Mass. Bay Transp. Auth. to explain that protected conduct occurring after an adverse employment action is imminent cannot serve as the predicate for a retaliation claim. The court further observed that Harris's request for accommodation actually postponed his termination while the company considered the request. National Grid's medical department provided detailed guidance on necessary documentation, and the company only terminated Harris after he failed to supply the required proof. The court found this sequence manifested 'bend-over-backwards respect' for Harris's rights rather than retaliation. Additionally, the company's inquiry into whether Harris had submitted FMLA leave requests was interpreted as a good-faith effort to ensure he received agreed-upon time to respond, not as evidence of a dedication to ending his employment before he could file.
The decision reinforces the strict chronological requirements for proving retaliation in employment cases. Employers are protected from retaliation claims if they can demonstrate that the decision to terminate an employee was made before the employee engaged in protected activity, such as requesting accommodation. The ruling clarifies that subsequent requests for accommodation cannot retroactively create a causal link to a termination that was already imminent. The case is remanded with instructions to enter judgment for the employer, and the decision leaves open the question of whether an employee could succeed if they had asserted their rights before the employer's decision to terminate was finalized.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download