Quiles-Quiles v. Henderson

439 F.3d 1 (2006)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Quiles-Quiles v. Henderson

United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
439 F.3d 1 (2006)

  • Written by Alexander Hager-DeMyer, JD

Facts

Genaro Quiles-Quiles (Quiles) (plaintiff) worked for the United States Postal Service. Quiles was supervised by Doris Vazquez. Soon after Quiles started his position, Vazquez began routinely interfering with Quiles’s job duties and yelling at him in front of other employees and customers, causing Quiles to suffer a panic attack and miss work for medical necessity. Quiles complained to Vazquez’s supervisor, Virgilio Lopez, who did nothing. After returning to work, Vazquez increased her interference with Quiles’s work, and her supervisor continued to ignore Quiles’s complaints. Vazquez drove her truck at Quiles while he was crossing the street outside the post office, causing Quiles’s anxiety to increase and prompting another complaint to Lopez, as well as a police report. Quiles’s psychiatrist prescribed a leave of absence and recommended a reassignment away from his cashier duties after returning to work. Quiles brought the medical documentation to Lopez in a sealed envelope, which Lopez proceeded to open and share with Vazquez. Vazquez called Quiles crazy, and she and Lopez laughed at Quiles. All the supervisors continued to name-call Quiles at work and joke about Quiles’s use of medication and need for a psychiatrist. Quiles filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), claiming that the supervisors harassed him based on his mental disability. The harassment continued with more jokes, additional yelling, and threats of psychical conflict. Quiles’s psychiatrist declared Quiles totally disabled due to severe depression, and due to continued harassment, Quiles had to take multiple leaves of absence and was hospitalized twice. Quiles filed suit under the Rehabilitation Act against the postmaster general (defendant), alleging that his supervisors harassed him for his disability and retaliated against him for complaining. The district court granted the postmaster general’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, finding, among other things, that Quiles did not prove that he suffered a hostile working environment or retaliation. Quiles appealed to the First Circuit.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Howard, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 811,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership