Mr. Aguirre was a police officer employed by the City of Miami ("City") in the off-duty office of the police department for approximately 18 years. The off-duty office assigns officers to work for private businesses throughout the City that request security for their private events.
In March 2003, Mr. Aguirre was a witness in a trial against the City. He testified as to the City's policy towards officers with disabilities and alleged discriminatory conduct of supervisors in his department. Mr. Aguirre's direct supervisor, Lieutenant Landa, was present for his testimony. The same day, Lt. Landa attended a meeting with his superiors to discuss Mr. Aguirre's trial testimony and internal complaints about selection of officers assigned to off-duty jobs. Lt. Landa was directed to change the office policy regarding off-duty job assignments.
That evening, Mr. Aguirre received a memo from Lt. Landa indicating Mr. Aguirre would no longer work off-duty jobs without Lt. Landa's consent. Prior to the memo, Mr. Aguirre was able to choose the off-duty jobs he wanted. Mr. Aguirre also lost his supervisory duties, was no longer permitted to attend office meetings, and was confined to clerical work.
A few months later, Lt. Landa was transferred from the off-duty office, and the policy change was revoked. Mr. Aguirre once again was able to choose his assignments and attend meetings, and no longer was confined to clerical work. Over a year later Mr. Aguirre retired, and shortly thereafter filed suit against the City for adverse employment action and constructive discharge. A constructive discharge occurs when an employee is legally justified in claiming he or she was compelled to resign because the employer made working conditions intolerable. In this case, Mr. Aguirre argued the policy change was retaliation against him because he testified about the City's alleged discriminatory conduct, and that by perpetuating or allowing the retaliation measures to persist, the City caused his resignation.
The City denied that Lt. Landa took any retaliatory measures against Mr. Aguirre, that any action affecting Mr. Aguirre's employment was connected to Lt. Landa's actions, and that the City constructively or otherwise discharged Mr. Aguirre.
These provisions specifically prohibit retaliation against any individual because that individual has testified in a proceeding regarding alleged discrimination under the ADA. Accordingly, to establish a case for retaliation under the ADA, Mr. Aguirre needed to demonstrate that "there is a causal link between the protected activity in which he participated and his employer's adverse employment action." Demonstrating the causal link required only that Mr. Aguirre show the City's change in policy was not wholly unrelated to his testimony in the discrimination case, which he could do by proving the City knew about his testimony at the time they changed the policy.
The Court relied on circumstantial evidence and inconsistencies in testimony to support a finding that there was conflicting evidence as to who ordered the policy change. Accordingly, the Court held that whether there was a causal connection between Mr. Aguirre's trial testimony and the City's decision to change the off-duty policy was a question for the jury.
Examples of significant deterioration include a demeaning demotion or transfer. The Court held that while reasonable men could differ as to whether the changes in Mr. Aguirre's environment immediately following his testimony constituted a demeaning demotion, his conditions drastically improved and he was practically restored to his former position when Lt. Landa transferred.
The Court held that Mr. Aguirre was not constructively discharged where he quit more than one year after any adverse employment action by the City, and while his employment conditions clearly improved.
The anti-retaliation provisions of the ADA protect any individual who opposes disability-based discrimination, or who makes a charge, testifies, assists, or participates in an investigation, proceeding or hearing under the ADA. To benefit from this anti-retaliation provision, the individual need not meet the definition of disability.
Eleventh Circuit precedent has denied claims of constructive discharge where the employee quit as few as eleven days after the alleged harassment stopped, and has held that an employee who remains in their position after the retaliatory conduct has ended, is barred from prevailing on a constructive discharge claim.