Lacroix v. Boston Police Dep't

Lacroix v. Boston Police Dep't

Opinion

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CASPER, J.

I. Introduction

Plaintiffs James LaCroix ("LaCroix"), Renee Payne-Callender ("Payne-Callender"), the Boston Police Patrolmen's Association ("BPPA"), the Boston Police Detectives Benevolent Society ("BPDBS") and the Boston Police Superior Officers Federation ("BPSOF") (collectively, "Plaintiffs") have filed this lawsuit against the Boston Police Department ("BPD") alleging [*2]  disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d) ("ADA") (Count I), handicap discrimination under Mass. Gen. L. c. 151B, § 4 (Count II), and genetic information discrimination under Mass. Gen. L. c. 151B, § 4(19) (Count III). D. 1. Specifically, Plaintiffs challenge BPD's policy requiring medical and psychological examinations for all officers who return from extended leave, regardless of the nature of their leave or job duties. Id. ¶ 1. Plaintiffs have now moved for partial summary judgment on Count I, D. 40,¹ and BPD has filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment, D. 47.² For the reasons stated below, the Court ALLOWS Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, D. 40, and DENIES BPD's cross-motion for partial summary judgment, D. 47.

II. Standard of Review

The Court grants summary judgment where there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the undisputed facts demonstrate that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). "A fact is material if it carries with it the potential to affect the outcome of the suit under applicable law." Santiago—Ramos v. Centennial P.R. Wireless Corp., 217 F.3d 46, 52 (1st Cir. 2000). The movant bears the burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Carmona v. Toledo, 215 F.3d 124, 132 (1st Cir. 2000); see Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986). If the movant meets its burden, the non-moving party may not rest on the [*3]  allegations or denials in its pleadings, Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986), but must come forward with specific admissible facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Borges ex rel. S.M.B.W. v. Serrano—Isern, 605 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2010). The Court "view[s] the record in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, drawing reasonable inferences in his favor." Noonan v. Staples, Inc., 556 F.3d 20, 25 (1st Cir. 2009). "When deciding cross-motions for summary judgment, the court must consider each motion separately, drawing inferences against each movant in turn." Reich v. John Alden Life Ins. Co., 126 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir. 1997). "Conclusory allegations, improbable inferences, and unsupported speculation," however, are "insufficient to establish a genuine dispute of fact." Travers v. Flight Servs. & Sys., Inc., 737 F.3d 144, 146 (1st Cir. 2013) (citation and internal quotation mark omitted).

III. Factual Background

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.