Appeals court hears arguments in Kiley v. Massachusetts Department of Mental Health over reasonable accommodation and summary judgment

Plaintiff counsel Scott Lang asked the appeals panel to reverse a summary-judgment ruling in favor of the Massachusetts Department of Mental Health in a case brought by psychiatric nurse Paula Kiley. Lang said the trial judge resolved credibility questions and failed to view evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, pointing to differences between a 2007 job description and a later 2017 version and arguing the department never meaningfully explored reasonable accommodations.

"We believe that the judge ... made several errors regarding her role in a summary judgment motion," Lang told the court, arguing that a jury should assess credibility and whether the department’s actions were pretextual. Counsel emphasized that a temporary modified job offer in May 2015 still allowed for patient-contact duties that the plaintiff said would worsen her condition.

Assistant Attorney General Ginny Kramer, representing the Department and a named supervisor, countered that the record contains no facts demonstrating comparators or specific accommodations that would create a triable issue. Kramer pointed to deposition excerpts and administrative records showing repeated offers to contact HR and that the plaintiff did not respond to specific outreach.

Why it matters: The appeal turns on whether the superior court properly judged whether evidence presented by Kiley created genuine disputes of material fact on discrimination, reasonable accommodation and retaliation claims. Central issues included whether "restraint" duties were part of an RN2's essential functions and whether the employer engaged in a required interactive process.

Next steps: The panel questioned both sides about specific record citations and whether supplemental materials should be considered on de novo appellate review; the court took the arguments under advisement.