USCA1 Opinion
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 96-2259
JANICE R. PERRY,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
NEW ENGLAND BUSINESS SERVICE, INC.,
Defendant, Appellee.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Richard G. Stearns, U.S. District Judge] ___________________
____________________
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________
Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge, ____________________
and Boudin, Circuit Judge. _____________
____________________
Janice R. Perry on brief pro se. _______________
Michael J. Pineault, Richard L. Alfred and Hill & Barlow on brief ____________________ _________________ _____________
for appellee.
____________________
June 3, 1997
____________________
Per Curiam. Plaintiff brought an action against __________
her employer under the American with Disabilities Act of
1990, 42 U.S.C. 12112(b)(5)(A), and Mass. Gen. L. ch. 151B,
alleging handicap discrimination in the employer's failure to
modify a restroom door. The district court granted summary
judgment on the ground that the evidence showed that neither
plaintiff nor her employer had realized at the time of
plaintiff's original request that a modification was needed
specifically to accommodate plaintiff's physical limitations.
Reviewing the judgment de novo, and reading the entire record __ ____
in the light most favorable to plaintiff, see Grenier v. ___ _______
Cyanamid Plastics, Inc., 70 F.3d 667, 671 (1st Cir. 1995), we _______________________
agree that there was insufficient summary judgment evidence
which would allow a reasonable jury to conclude that
plaintiff's employer discriminated against her by refusing to
reasonably accommodate known limitations related to her
disability.
The court did not abuse its discretion in allowing
plaintiff's privately-retained counsel to withdraw from the
representation, nor in refusing to provide plaintiff with a
court-appointed substitute. Plaintiff was given sufficient
opportunity to seek new counsel. There is no merit to the
remaining assignments of error.
The judgment is affirmed. See Loc. R. 27.1 ________ ___
-2-