Ozek v. JetBlue Airways Corporation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
JONATHAN OZEK,
Plaintiff,
*
*
*
*
Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-10025-IT	v. 	*
*
JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORP.,
Defendant.
*
*
*
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
November 13, 2025
TALWANI, D.J.
Plaintiff Jonathan Ozek brings this action against his former employer, Defendant JetBlue
Airways Corporation (“JetBlue”), alleging three counts of employment discrimination on the
basis of disability under M.G.L. c. 151B: disability discrimination (Count I), perceived disability
discrimination (Count II), and retaliation (Count III). Pending before the court is JetBlue’s
Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 21].
The court heard argument from JetBlue’s counsel at the November 3, 2025 hearing on the
motion.1 For the reasons explained below, the motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in
part and DENIED without prejudice in part.
1 Ozek’s counsel did not appear at the hearing and JetBlue moved orally for dismissal of the case
for failure to prosecute under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). See Elec. Clerk’s Notes [Doc. No. 36].
Plaintiff’s counsel has not yet responded to that motion, which remains under advisement.
Case 1:24-cv-10025-IT Document 39 Filed 11/13/25 Page 1 of 24

2
I. 	Factual Background Viewed in the Light Most Favorable to Ozek
A. 	JetBlue’s General Employment Practices at Boston Logan International
Airport
Boston Logan Airport is a noisy, chaotic, busy, and fast-paced environment. Pl.’s Resp.
to Def.’s Statement of Material Facts (“SOF”) ¶ 20 [Doc. No. 27].
Airport Operations Crewmembers at JetBlue “are expected to be the frontline of
JetBlue’s communication with Customers.” Id. ¶ 20. They work at various customer-facing areas
of the airport, principally the terminal gates, the ticket counter, and the baggage support office,
with leaner staffing at the “Just Ask Desk” and the Airport Operations Support Base in an office
that helps coordinate crewmembers in the performance of their roles. Id. ¶ 31; Ex. 11, Decl. of
Jonathan Hall (“Hall Decl.”) ¶ 7 [Doc. No. 22-11]; see also Ex. 13, Noemy Brito Dep. (“Brito
Dep.”) 12:11-14:21 [Doc. No. 22-13] (summarizing different “placements” for the role of a
Crewmember). “The ability to communicate efficiently and effectively in person, by phone, and
by handheld radio is an essential function of the [Crewmember] position in all five of these
assignments.” SOF ¶ 27 [Doc. No. 27].
JetBlue operates a seniority-based bid system, in which Airport Operations
Crewmembers periodically submit their preferences for which airport “function/location (i.e.,
gate, ticket counter, and baggage drop),” SOF ¶¶ 78–79 [Doc. No. 27], they “want to perform for
the next ‘bid’ period (which typically lasts a few months)[,]” Hall Decl. ¶ 17 [Doc. No. 22-11].
The bidding system is based on Crewmembers’ seniority, and the more senior a Crewmember is,
the more likely they are to be scheduled for the airport function of their preference. SOF ¶¶ 78,
80 [Doc. No. 27].
“All newly hired Airport Operations Crewmembers begin working at the ticket counter.”
Hall Decl. ¶ 16 [Doc. No. 22-11]; see also Aff. of Jonathan Ozek (“Pl.’s Aff.”) ¶ 7 [Doc. No. 27-
Case 1:24-cv-10025-IT Document 39 Filed 11/13/25 Page 2 of 24

3
1] (ticket counter “is where all newly hired Crewmembers start”). The ticket counter function
requires “assisting customers in person and via phone,” “frequent handheld radio and telephone
communication[,]” and “communicat[ing] and cooperat[ing] closely” with other Crewmembers.
SOF ¶¶ 29–30, 32 [Doc. No. 27]. “If a newly hired Airport Operations Crewmember completes
training at the ticket counter and successfully bids for another function (e.g., gates), then they
will begin training at that other function.” Id. ¶ 77.
“Crewmembers working at the gates prepare the gates for departures, including by
helping customers board the plane, organizing unaccompanied minors, disabled passengers and
wheelchairs, handling any seat changes, and answering occasional phone calls.” Id. ¶ 40. The
gate function “is more fast-paced, chaotic, and time-sensitive than the other [Crewmember]
functions” and “also involves a larger volume of telephone and radio communications.” Id.
¶¶ 38–39, 41. Utilizing radios is a requirement for Crewmembers working at the gates. Id. ¶ 44.
Working at the gates also requires being able to hear and respond to the “safety shoe” alarm
system, which is triggered when a jet bridge is not properly connected to an aircraft. Id. ¶¶ 61,
67–70. The “safety shoe” alarm has both auditory and visual components, which are only visible
if an individual is on the jet bridge and facing the jet bridge control panel. Id. ¶¶ 62–66. “[A]n
Airport Operations Crewmember’s failure to hear the jet bridge alarm would be a safety issue.”
Id. ¶ 72.
According to the job posting for the position, “Crewmembers will be required to perform
and / or rotate through all Airport Operations related functions (gate, ticket counter, etc.).” Ex.
12, Airport Operations Crew Position Summary 1 [Doc. No. 22-12]; see Ex. 4, Pl.’s Dep.
142:15-143:7 [Doc. No. 22-4]. Based on operational needs and staffing levels, Airport
Operations Crewmembers may be pulled from one assignment to another on any given shift,
Case 1:24-cv-10025-IT Document 39 Filed 11/13/25 Page 3 of 24

4
including being sent to different functions or locations on short notice. SOF ¶¶ 49–50 [Doc. No.
27]. For the same reason, Crewmembers may also be constrained to perform their job duties
alone at times. Id. ¶ 52.
B. 	Ozek’s Medical Background
Ozek is completely deaf in his right ear. SOF ¶ 4 [Doc. No. 27]. He is completely deaf in
his left ear without the use of a hearing aid. Id. ¶ 5. His hearing impairment is permanent, Ex. 21,
July 11, 2022 Accommodation Substantiation Form 1 [Doc. No. 22-21], and affects him in the
major life activities of hearing and communicating, SOF ¶ 141 [Doc. No. 27]. Ozek also suffers
from an “expressive language disorder” that causes him to take additional time to respond to
questions. Id. ¶¶ 10–11.
C. 	Ozek Discloses His Disability, Commences Employment, is Accommodated
During Training, and Successfully Passes His 90-Day Introductory Period at
the Ticket Counter
In January 2022, after Ozek disclosed his hearing loss to JetBlue, JetBlue hired Ozek as
an Airport Operations Crewmember at Boston Logan Airport. Aff. of Jonathan Ozek (“Pl.’s
Aff.”) ¶¶ 3, 5 [Doc. No. 27-1]; SOF ¶ 19 [Doc. No. 27].
Ozek’s offer letter, dated January 8, 2022, states: “After you complete classroom and on
the job training, your 90 day introductory period will begin. Your performance will be evaluated
after the 90 day introductory period ends to assess your potential for continued employment.”
Ex. 10, Offer Letter 2 [Doc. No. 22-10].
Beginning on January 19, 2022, and prior to reporting to Boston Logan Airport, Ozek
attended a two-week training in Florida. Pl.’s Aff. ¶ 5 [Doc. No. 27-1]. On January 19, 2022,
Ozek emailed JetBlue’s ADA team about the “ADA Skills Checks or Online Exam.” Ex. 20,
Email Thread [Doc. No. 22-20]. His email noted that he is hearing impaired and that language
Case 1:24-cv-10025-IT Document 39 Filed 11/13/25 Page 4 of 24

5
processing is a problem for him. Id. A JetBlue ADA Coordinator responded by suggesting a
phone call. Id.
On January 27, 2022, Ozek responded by email, writing that “due to my hearing loss, I
can’t make a phone call.” SOF ¶ 125 [Doc. No. 27]. In this email, he requested extra time on a
‘skill check’ [examination] due to his ‘hearing loss’ and ‘language processing’ difficulties.” Id.
¶ 124. That same day, the ADA Coordinator replied to Ozek’s email “and asked for medical
documentation to substantiate the request.” Id. ¶ 126. Ozek wrote back the same day that he
could not immediately provide the documentation as he was at the training and not in Boston,
and did not know in advance that he would need medical documentation. Ex. 19, Email Thread
at 870 [Doc. No. 22-19]. He asked what else could be done as to his request; the record shows no
response from JetBlue. Id.
Ozek did not send in medical documentation while he was training in Florida. SOF ¶ 128
[Doc. No. 27]. Nonetheless, Ozek was granted the requested accommodation of extra time to
take his skill check examination. Id. ¶ 129.
In late January or early February 2022, after passing all required examinations, Ozek
began working at Boston Logan Airport as an Airport Operations Crewmember at the pre-
security ticket counter function. Pl.’s Aff. ¶¶ 6–7 [Doc. No. 27-1].
On February 8, 2022, the ADA Coordinator documented by email to Ozek that JetBlue
became aware on January 27, 2022, of his medical condition that may require a work
accommodation under the ADA, namely, additional testing time, and requested additional
documentation “as part of the process to assist [him] with [his] request[.]” Ex. 19, Email Thread
at 869 [Doc. No. 22-19]. Ozek did not respond or seek further accommodation while at the ticket
counter function. SOF ¶ 128 [Doc. No. 27].
Case 1:24-cv-10025-IT Document 39 Filed 11/13/25 Page 5 of 24

6
Ozek remained at the ticket counter function through the 90-day introductory period and
continuing to early June 2022. SOF ¶ 89 [Doc. No. 27]. Ozek had “no issues” working at the
ticket counter and had no need to request an accommodation for his hearing loss. Pl.’s Aff. ¶ 7
[Doc. No. 27-1]. He was never disciplined or warned, in any way, about poor performance or an
inability to do this job. Id.
While working at the ticket counter function, Ozek’s job duties were to check in
customers, scan their luggage, and help them at the kiosk. Pl.’s Dep. 30:6–12 [Doc. No. 22-4].
His duties did not include phone calls with customers, as “[t]here is no phone number for a
customer to call to speak directly to a ticketing agent or a gate agent[.]” Pl.’s Aff. ¶ 15 [Doc. No.
27-1]. His duties did include making phone calls to assist customers; because his hearing loss
prevented him from using the work phone, JetBlue had provided him with a phone number to
call others at JetBlue from his own phone, which is connected via Bluetooth to his hearing aid if
necessary for JetBlue duties; for example, if there was a problem with a customer’s ticket, he
would use his own phone to call whomever he needed for the situation. Id. at 30:16-24, 31:12-
15; 31:24-32:5. If an internal call was received at the ticket counter, he would ask a co-worker to
help. Id. at 33:1–8.
D. 	Reassignment to Gates
On June 6, 2022, after a successful bid for reassignment to the gates function, Ozek
began training at the gates. SOF ¶ 89 [Doc. No. 27].
1. 	Request for Accommodations at the Gates
On June 10, 2022, Ozek emailed JetBlue’s ADA team: “[J]ust recently, I’ve moved to
Gates” and “[t]he past few days has [sic] been challenging for me because of my hearing
loss. . . . What was so difficult was the walkie talkie and the phone call. I have a[n] additional
piece for the walkie talkie that I requested for, but it’s not enough.” SOF ¶ 131 [Doc. No. 27]. In
Case 1:24-cv-10025-IT Document 39 Filed 11/13/25 Page 6 of 24

7
a June 16 follow-up call with JetBlue’s ADA team, Ozek reported difficulty communicating with
fellow Crewmembers using the walkie-talkie radio and requested an accommodation. Id. ¶ 137.
On July 11, Ozek signed a medical authorization and release form for purposes of
JetBlue’s inquiry into his request for a reasonable accommodation. Ex. 21, Medical Records at
1249 [Doc. No. 22-21]. On July 13, Ozek emailed JetBlue’s ADA team medical documentation
from his audiologist, which confirmed that he had severe hearing loss and was affected in the
major life activities of hearing and communicating. SOF ¶¶ 140–41 [Doc. No. 27]. The
audiologist, Dr. Kelley Glass, suggested the following accommodations: “closed caption- TTY
phone at gates or call his cell phone to communicate with him as it is connected via Bluetooth to
his hearing aid. Jonathan’s hearing aid has Bluetooth in it and will pair to any iPhone directly.
You could provide him with an Apple iPhone or iPad or allow him to use his personal phone
while at work. You could also text him on his phone so he can read what is said.” Id. ¶ 142.
On July 14, JetBlue’s ADA team and Ozek discussed by phone his accommodation
request in more detail. Id. ¶ 144.
During this time, Ozek was not authorized to work the jet bridge and so, while working at
the gates, he would notify his supervisor to have an authorized Crewmember handle the jet
bridge for him. Pl.’s Dep. 47:6-24, 96:7-16, 147:2-7 [Doc. No. 22-4].
Around July 2022, JetBlue’s ADA team granted Ozek’s request and provided him with a
Bluetooth-compatible handheld radio that could pair to his hearing aid. SOF ¶ 145 [Doc. No. 27].
JetBlue’s ADA team also provided Ozek a shoulder microphone to use with the radio to amplify
his hearing. Id. ¶ 146.
In August, Ozek notified JetBlue’s ADA team that his radio was not working properly
and requested information about Bluetooth pairing. Id. ¶ 147. On August 31, JetBlue’s ADA
Case 1:24-cv-10025-IT Document 39 Filed 11/13/25 Page 7 of 24

8
team sent him the instructions to the radio and the manufacturer’s contact information to
troubleshoot issues he was having with it. Id. ¶ 148. He did not call the manufacturer for
guidance. Id. ¶ 149. He did not take the handheld radio to his audiologist to attempt pairing it
with his hearing aid, and was never told that he could not do so. Pl.’s Dep. 58:3–13 [Doc. No.
22-4].
2. 	JetBlue’s ADA Team Speaks with Dr. Glass
On August 17, 2022, after receiving reports of performance and potential safety issues, a
JetBlue ADA Analyst spoke to Ozek’s supervisors. SOF ¶ 156 [Doc. No. 27].
On August 31, in light of the issues raised and to better understand Ozek’s medical
condition and restrictions, the JetBlue ADA Analyst spoke with Ozek’s audiologist, Dr. Glass.
Id. ¶ 187. During that conversation, the JetBlue ADA Analyst explained the essential functions
of the Crewmember role. Id. ¶ 189. Dr. Glass stated, among other things, that a noisy
environment is difficult for Ozek because of his hearing impairment. Id. ¶ 188.
3. 	JetBlue’s Determination Regarding Ozek’s Ability to Perform the Duties of
the Crewmember Position
On September 13, 2022, JetBlue’s ADA Analyst emailed Dr. Glass a copy of JetBlue’s
job description for the Crewmember position and a summary of the JetBlue ADA Analyst’s
understanding of Dr. Glass’s medical opinion concerning Ozek’s restrictions and her proposed
accommodations. Id. ¶¶ 194–196. The Analyst’s email stated:
You explained that Jonathan has severe hearing loss which he uses a hearing aid
for, however, his range of hearing even with the hearing aid depends on the volume
and pitch of the sound and how noisy the environment is. We discussed the
patient[’]s ability to hear alarms and or customers and you explained that a noisy
environment like an airport can be very challenging for him to hear and perform in.
You also suggested that the patient remain in a role with a partner who can assist
him should an emergency occur and there are no visual indicators or be transitioned
into another role in which he does not have to depend on his hearing as much.
Case 1:24-cv-10025-IT Document 39 Filed 11/13/25 Page 8 of 24

9
Id. ¶ 195. Dr. Glass replied, confirming that JetBlue’s ADA Analyst had “understood everything
correctly.” Id. ¶ 197.
On September 29, 2022, the JetBlue ADA Analyst called Ozek. Id. ¶ 198. Her notes from
that call state in part:
I reached out to the CM [Crewmember] to explain his doctor’s statements about his
condition: 1- He would need a partner at all times 2- Nois[]y environments such as
airports would cause a challenge related to his condition. 3- He should work in a
role that does not heavily rely on hearing. CM was upset and I had to repeat the
information multiple times.
Id. ¶ 199.
That same day, JetBlue’s ADA team emailed Ozek that he would be unable to return to
the Crewmember position, Ex. 37, Sept. 29, 2022 Email from JetBlue’s ADA Team to Ozek
[Doc. No. 22-37], because JetBlue had determined that he could not perform the essential
functions of the position with or without a reasonable accommodation, Brito Decl. ¶ 48 [Doc.
No. 22-2]. The email stated that the decision was “[b]ased on Ozek’s own statements about his
restrictions, Ozek’s colleagues’ reports of performance and safety-related issues, and Dr. Glass’s
medical opinion.” Id.; see also Ex. 40, Oct. 2022 Email Thread [Doc No. 22-40].
E. 	Unpaid Leave and Further Medical Reports
1. 	Initial Communications Between JetBlue’s ADA Team and Ozek Regarding
“Position Reassignment” and Ozek’s Placement on Unpaid Medical Leave
JetBlue’s ADA Analyst’s notes from September 29, 2022, state further that she “offered
[position reassignment] if the CM wishes to accept.” SOF ¶ 199 [Doc. No. 27]; see also Brito
Dep. ¶ 53 [Doc. No. 22-2]. “Position reassignment” is “an unpaid leave . . . that allows
[Crewmembers] the opportunity to find a position within JetBlue that meets [their] doctor’s
restrictions and recommendations.” SOF ¶ 255 [Doc. No. 27]. This unpaid leave “is typically a
three-month accommodation[,]” which “ADA Compliance will typically extend . . . once (for a
Case 1:24-cv-10025-IT Document 39 Filed 11/13/25 Page 9 of 24

10
total of six months) if a Crewmember is unable to secure a position within the initial three month
period.” Id. ¶¶ 209–10.
On September 30, 2022, Ozek declined the offer of unpaid leave and requested to remain
in the Crewmember position which he stated he could perform without any accommodations. Id.
¶¶ 213–14. On October 3, 2022, JetBlue removed Ozek from active duty and placed him on an
unpaid medical leave of absence, asserting that this removal was based on the ADA team’s
determination that Ozek could not perform the essential functions of the Crewmember role. Id.
¶¶ 215–216.
On October 6, Ozek requested that he be removed from the medical leave of absence that
he had not requested so that he could bid for a new Crewmember assignment. Ex. 40, October 6–
10, 2022 Email Thread 937 [Doc. No. 22-40]. The next day, JetBlue’s ADA Coordinator
reiterated JetBlue’s reasons for removing Ozek from the Crewmember position and repeated the
offer of an unpaid leave to seek another position. Id. at 936. She requested his response by
October 12. Id. at 937.
Ozek responded the same day stating that he understood that some employees have
remained at the ticket counter function without bidding on other positions and that another
employee with severe hearing loss was given accommodations at “JetBlue JFK[.]” Id. at 936. He
again requested to be permitted to remain in his position. Id.
2. 	Further Correspondence with Dr. Glass
Around this time, Ozek also contacted Dr. Glass regarding JetBlue’s decision and his
desire to return to his role as Crewmember. SOF ¶¶ 225, 232 [Doc. No. 27].
On October 11, 2022 Dr. Glass, in turn, emailed the ADA Analyst and inquired about
JetBlue’s decision to remove Ozek from work, stating that she had not said that Ozek “could not
perform at his job.” Id. ¶ 228. Dr. Glass and the ADA Analyst exchanged emails regarding
Case 1:24-cv-10025-IT Document 39 Filed 11/13/25 Page 10 of 24

11
Ozek’s medical restrictions and his ability to perform the essential functions of the Crewmember
role. See id. ¶¶ 228–30, 234–36. In response to questions regarding those topics, Dr. Glass stated
that it was “difficult to answer the questions in an absolute yes/no fashion as there are many
factors that will contribute to how a person will hear in different environments.” Ex. 42, Oct. 24,
2022 Email from Dr. Glass to Noemy Brito at 53 [Doc. No. 22-42]; SOF ¶ 235 [Doc. No. 27].
Dr. Glass recommended that Ozek undergo a “functional gain test with his hearing aid[]
in to see how he is hearing with noise present and without noise.” SOF ¶ 235 [Doc. No. 27]. Dr.
Glass scheduled Ozek for such testing with Dr. Eva Bero, another audiologist. Id. ¶ 235, 240.
3. 	Functional Gain Assessment with Dr. Bero
On or about November 21, 2022, Dr. Bero performed a functional gain assessment of
Ozek’s hearing. SOF ¶ 241 [Doc. No. 27]. The assessment results showed that Ozek “was
completely deaf in his right ear; and that, even while wearing his hearing aid in his left ear, he
had ‘limited speech perception of 32% of sentence understanding at typical conversational
speech level’ and that speech perception dropped to ‘3% correct in presence of speech babble
background noise.’” Id. ¶ 245.
On December 12, in response to questions from JetBlue’s ADA Coordinator concerning
Ozek’s ability to safely perform the Crewmember job, Dr. Bero indicated that Ozek “would have
difficulty performing the following job functions without accommodation: use of ‘handheld
radios and microphones to communicate with operations and make all terminal announcements,’
‘handheld radios,’ and ‘subject to weather and elevated noise levels within airports.’” Id. ¶¶ 246–
47. Dr. Bero wrote that “increased noise levels in the airport environment would make it difficult
to hear for communication without additional supports of use of facial cues and/or speech-to-text
technologies” and, further, that “speech perception with hearing only with a customer wearing a
standard surgical type mask is expected to be limited.’” Id. ¶ 248.
Case 1:24-cv-10025-IT Document 39 Filed 11/13/25 Page 11 of 24

12
On December 20, 2022, JetBlue’s ADA team emailed Ozek memorializing the team’s
receipt of medical opinions from Drs. Glass and Bero. Id. ¶ 253. In that email, the ADA team
stated that based on those opinions and the concerns from Ozek’s supervisors, they were unable
to grant his request to work as a Crewmember “as it would pose safety related concerns” and
“would require the removal of essential functions of the . . . role.” Id. ¶ 254.
4. 	Acceptance of “Position Reassignment”
JetBlue’s ADA team again offered Ozek unpaid leave while seeking other JetBlue
positions, which he accepted on December 21, 2022. Id. ¶¶ 255, 257. His period of unpaid leave
was later extended to June 22, 2023. Id. ¶ 283.
F. 	Applications During the Unpaid Leave
During the unpaid leave for “Position Reassignment,” JetBlue’s ADA team requests that
JetBlue’s Talent Acquisition Team schedule an interview for the Crewmember for any role for
which the Crewmember applies and meets the minimum qualifications. Id. ¶ 212. Crewmembers
on this unpaid leave still must “compete with other qualified candidates.” Ex. 49, Dec. 21, 2022
Email Thread at 110 [Doc. No. 22-49]. If a Crewmember does not secure a position during this
unpaid leave, the Crewmember’s employment with JetBlue ends. SOF ¶ 258 [Doc. No. 27].
Between December 2022 and June 2023, Ozek applied to 26 open positions. Ex. 50,
Carrie Merida Decl. (“Merida Decl.”) ¶ 16 [Doc. No. 22-50]; Pl.’s Dep. 225:4–8 [Doc. No. 22-
4]; Ex. 51, Chart of Pl.’s Applications [Doc. No. 22-51].
JetBlue’s ADA team “ensured that Plaintiff received an interview for every role to which
he applied and for which he met the minimum qualifications,” except for eleven positions where
JetBlue found that he “was not as competitive as other applicants.” SOF ¶ 263 [Doc. No. 27]; Ex.
50, Merida Decl. ¶ 20 [Doc. No. 22-50]; see also Ex. 51, Chart of Pl.’s Applications [Doc. No.
22-51]. JetBlue offered Ozek three interviews. SOF ¶¶ 299–300 [Doc. No. 27]. For the
Case 1:24-cv-10025-IT Document 39 Filed 11/13/25 Page 12 of 24

13
remaining twelve positions, JetBlue did not offer Ozek interviews because he failed to meet the
minimum qualifications, was otherwise ineligible, or the position was filled before he was
considered. See id. ¶ 289 (failed to meet minimum qualifications for 4 positions); id. ¶ 293
(requisitions cancelled for 4 positions); id. ¶ 295 (filled before Ozek could be considered for 2
positions); id. ¶¶ 296–98 (Ozek ineligible for consideration for 2 positions).
On March 22, 2023, Ozek interviewed for the Specialist Baggage Recovery role. Id.
¶ 300. He “was deemed . . . competitive enough to be placed in a pool” from which, “[i]n the
event there was an opening, JetBlue would reach out to Plaintiff and offer him the position.”
Merida Decl. ¶ 27 [Doc. No. 22-50]; SOF ¶¶ 302–03 [Doc. No. 27].
On May 24, 2023, Ozek interviewed for the Coordinator Badge role. SOF ¶ 305 [Doc.
No. 27]. The interviewer did not recommend Ozek for the role after evaluating Ozek’s candidacy
on seven proscribed metrics. Ex. 62, Pl.’s Badge Coordinator Interview Results [Doc. No. 22-
62]. Because Ozek was therefore deemed “not as competitive” as other interviewees, Ex. 51,
Chart of Pl.’s Applications [Doc. No. 22-51], JetBlue did not offer him this position. Ex. 50,
Merida Decl. ¶ 26 [Doc. No. 22-50].
Ozek was offered an interview for the Coordinator Accounting and Scheduling role but
did not appear for this interview. SOF ¶ 299 [Doc. No. 27].
JetBlue did not hire Ozek for any of the roles for which he applied. Id. ¶ 312.
G. 	Ozek’s Termination
On June 22, 2023, after six months of unpaid leave, Ozek was “administratively
separated” from JetBlue. SOF ¶ 312 [Doc. No. 27]. JetBlue’s stated reasons for the termination
were that: (1) “he had not obtained another position with JetBlue during position reassignment”;
(2) “JetBlue had determined that [he] was permanently restricted from performing the essential
Case 1:24-cv-10025-IT Document 39 Filed 11/13/25 Page 13 of 24

14
functions” of the Crewmember role; and (3) “JetBlue was unable to provide [him] with indefinite
leave.” Id.; see Ex. 63, Termination Letter [Doc. No. 22-63].
Throughout his time working at JetBlue, “[n]o coworker or supervisor at JetBlue ever
insulted [Ozek’s] ability to hear or communicate” or “ever made a statement about [his] hearing
loss[.]” SOF ¶¶ 320–21 [Doc. No. 27].
II. 	Legal Standard
Under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment is appropriate
when “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A fact is material when, under
the governing substantive law, it could affect the outcome of the case. Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); Baker v. St. Paul Travelers, Inc., 670 F.3d 119, 125 (1st
Cir. 2012). A dispute is genuine if a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving
party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248.
The moving party bears the initial burden of establishing the absence of a genuine dispute
of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). This burden can be satisfied
in two ways: (1) by submitting affirmative evidence that negates an essential element of the non-
moving party’s claim or (2) by demonstrating that the non-moving party failed to establish an
essential element of its claim. Id. at 331.
Once the moving party establishes the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact, the
burden shifts to the non-moving party to set forth facts demonstrating that a genuine dispute of
material fact remains. Id. at 314. The non-moving party cannot oppose a properly supported
summary judgment motion by “rest[ing] on mere allegations or denials of [the] pleadings.”
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256. Rather, the non-moving party must “go beyond the pleadings and by
[his or] her own affidavits, or by ‘the depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on
Case 1:24-cv-10025-IT Document 39 Filed 11/13/25 Page 14 of 24

15
file,’ designate ‘specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.’” Celotex, 477 U.S.
at 324 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)). Disputes over facts “that are irrelevant or unnecessary”
will not preclude summary judgment. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248.
When reviewing a motion for summary judgment, the court must take all properly
supported evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant and draw all reasonable
inferences in the non-movant’s favor. Griggs-Ryan v. Smith, 904 F.2d 112, 115 (1st Cir. 1990).
“Credibility determinations, the weighing of evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences
from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge . . . ruling on a motion for summary
judgment . . . .” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255.
III. 	Discussion
A. Counts I–II: Disability Discrimination and Perceived Disability Discrimination
The court addresses Counts I (disability discrimination) and II (perceived disability
discrimination) together because “[c]laims of handicap discrimination, including a perception of
(‘regarded as’) impairment, proceed” under the same analytical framework, City of New Bedford
v. Massachusetts Comm'n Against Discrimination, 440 Mass. 450, 461, 799 N.E.2d 578 (2003),
and because JetBlue does not dispute that Ozek can establish that he is disabled, see Def.’s Mem.
ISO Mot. for Summ. J. (“Def.’s Mem.”) 16 n.13 [Doc. No. 24].
1. 	Hostile Workplace and Disparate Treatment
Because Ozek fails to respond to JetBlue’s motion as to the hostile workplace and
disparate treatment aspects of his claims, see Def.’s Mem. 16–18 & n.11 [Doc. No. 24], those
claims are deemed waived. See Schneider v. Local 103 I.B.E.W. Health Plan, 442 F.3d 1, 3 (1st
Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (“[A]n issue raised in the complaint but ignored at summary judgment
may be deemed waived.”).
Case 1:24-cv-10025-IT Document 39 Filed 11/13/25 Page 15 of 24

16
JetBlue’s motion is therefore GRANTED as unopposed as to the hostile workplace and
disparate treatment aspects of Counts I and II.
2. 	Failure to Accommodate
a. 	Legal Framework
Chapter 151B forbids an employer from “discriminat[ing] against, because of his
handicap, any person alleging to be a qualified handicapped person[.]” M.G.L. c. 151B, § 4(16).
Under Chapter 151B, “an employer is required to provide an employee with a known disability a
reasonable accommodation that will enable her ‘to perform the essential functions of [her] job’
unless the accommodation would cause the employer undue hardship.” Stratton v. Bentley Univ.,
113 F.4th 25, 52 (1st Cir. 2024) (quoting Godfrey v. Globe Newspaper Co., 457 Mass. 113, 119,
928 N.E.2d 327 (2010)). The plaintiff “must show that he is ‘handicapped’ within the meaning of
the statute; that he is a ‘qualified handicapped person’ capable of performing the essential
functions of his job either without accommodation or with a reasonable accommodation; and that
he was subject to an adverse employment action because of his handicap.” Godfrey, 457 Mass. at
120; see also M.G.L. c. 151B, § 1(16) (defining “qualified handicapped person” as “a
handicapped person who is capable of performing the essential functions of a particular job, or
who would be capable of performing the essential functions of a particular job with reasonable
accommodation to his handicap”).
An “essential function is a fundamental job dut[y] of the employment position the
individual with a disability holds[.]” Sensing v. Outback Steakhouse of Fla., LLC, 575 F.3d 145,
157 (1st Cir. 2009) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Determining whether a
particular function is “essential” under Chapter 151B is “an individualized inquiry.” See
Massacani v. Kelly Servs., Inc., 2018 WL 443448, at *6 (D. Mass. Jan. 16, 2018) (citing
Godfrey, 457 Mass. at 121). While the First Circuit “generally give[s] substantial weight to the
Case 1:24-cv-10025-IT Document 39 Filed 11/13/25 Page 16 of 24

17
employer’s view of job requirements in the absence of evidence of discriminatory animus, it is
only one factor in the [essential functions] analysis.” Ward v. Massachusetts Health Rsch. Inst.,
Inc., 209 F.3d 29, 34 (1st Cir. 2000) (internal citation omitted). Other factors to be considered
include, but are not limited to, “written job descriptions, consequences of not requiring the
function, work experience of past incumbents, and work experience of current incumbents.” Id.;
see also Cox v. New England Tel. & Tel. Co., 414 Mass. 375, 383–84, 607 N.E.2d 1035 (1993)
(“Such a determination should be based upon more than statements in a job description and
should reflect the actual functioning and circumstances of the particular enterprise involved.”).
Ozek bears the burden of proving the existence of a reasonable accommodation that
would have enabled him to perform the essential functions of the Crewmember position. See
Godfrey, 457 Mass. at 120. He must “show not only that the proposed accommodation would
enable [him] to perform the essential functions of [his] job, but also that, at least on the face of
things, it is feasible for the employer under the circumstances.” Reed v. LePage Bakeries, Inc.,
244 F.3d 254, 259 (1st Cir. 2001).2
An employer is not required to “accommodate a disability by foregoing an essential
function of the position[.]” Kvorjak v. Maine, 259 F.3d 48, 57 (1st Cir. 2001); see also St.
Laurent v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 416 F. Supp. 2d 212, 223 (D. Mass. 2006) (“[U]nder both
Federal and Massachusetts law, ‘reasonable accommodation does not include waiving or
excusing an inability to perform an essential job function.’”) (quoting Cox, 414 Mass. at 390).
2 Although the claims in Reed arose under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the
same standard is applied to disability discrimination claims under Chapter 151B. See Mekonnen
v. OTG Mgmt., LLC, 394 F. Supp. 3d 134, 155 (D. Mass. 2019), aff’d, 2021 WL 1110915 (1st
Cir. Mar. 23, 2021); see also Henry v. United Bank, 686 F.3d 50, 58–59 (1st Cir. 2012) (“[a]s
Chapter 151B is considered the state analogue to the [ADA], Massachusetts courts look to cases
decided under the federal counterpart to inform its interpretation”).
Case 1:24-cv-10025-IT Document 39 Filed 11/13/25 Page 17 of 24

18
And an employer “need not . . . reallocate essential functions to other employees,” Phelps
v. Optima Health, Inc., 251 F.3d 21, 26 (1st Cir. 2001), nor create a new position for the
employee, Russell v. Cooley Dickinson Hosp., Inc., 437 Mass. 443, 454, 772 N.E.2d 1054
(2002). The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has held that “the Massachusetts statute is
less generous than the ADA” in that it does not require reassignment to vacant positions as a
reasonable accommodation. Russell, 437 Mass. at 454; M.G.L. c. 151B, § 4(16) (barring
dismissal of employees who are “capable of performing the essential functions of the position
involved with reasonable accommodation”) (emphasis added).
b. 	Performance of Essential Functions With or Without a Reasonable
Accommodation
JetBlue argues that Ozek is not capable of performing the essential functions of his job,
with or without a reasonable accommodation. Ozek does not argue that he was capable of
performing the essential functions of an Airport Operations Crewmember at the gates function.3
Instead, he argues that he can perform the essential functions of an Airport Operations
Crewmember at the ticket counter function and that a transfer back to that function would have
been a reasonable accommodation. He also argues that JetBlue failed to provide him with a
reasonable accommodation when it refused to further extend his position reassignment beyond
the extended six-month period.
3 His arguments about JetBlue’s failure to engage in an interactive process with him by not
resolving his issues with pairing the Bluetooth-compatible handheld radio ADA Compliance
provided, Pl.’s Opp. 5–6 [Doc. No. 28], are unavailing because unlike the ADA, “there is no
such requirement [to engage in the interactive process] under Massachusetts law in chapter
151B.” Sullivan v. Raytheon Co., 262 F.3d 41, 48 (1st Cir. 2001).
Case 1:24-cv-10025-IT Document 39 Filed 11/13/25 Page 18 of 24

19
i. 	Request to Transfer Back to the Ticket Counter Function
Ozek argues that JetBlue failed to offer him a reasonable accommodation by not
transferring him back to the ticket counter, where he had performed his duties without issue for
four and a half months. Pl.’s Opp. 7 [Doc. No. 28]. Although the Massachusetts Supreme
Judicial Court has held that an employer is “under no obligation to create a new position for the
plaintiff” as an accommodation, it also recognized in the same case that the “plaintiff never
requested to return to her former position as an admitting assistant, nor did she indicate that she
would be able to perform the essential functions of that position with accommodation.” Russell,
437 Mass. at 454; see Morrill v. Lowe’s Home Ctrs., LLC, 2022 WL 2168479, at *5 (Mass.
Super. Apr. 19, 2022) (“The clear implication of the language from Russell cited above is that,
had the plaintiff in that case sought a return to her former position as an admitting assistant, her
employer would have been required to evaluate that request as a reasonable accommodation.”).
Ozek has met his burden of producing evidence from which a jury could find that he was
qualified to perform the essential functions of the Crewmember position at the ticket counter
function, and that a transfer back to the ticket counter would have been a reasonable
accommodation. Although a “plaintiff may not rely on past performance to establish that he is a
qualified individual without accommodation when there is undisputed evidence of diminished or
deteriorated abilities[,]” Richardson v. Friendly Ice Cream Corp., 594 F.3d 69, 80 (1st Cir.
2010), there is no record evidence of diminished or deteriorated abilities during Ozek’s time
working at the ticketing counter. And although the medical opinions of his doctors suggest that
he may be unable to perform the job based on assessments in controlled environments, a jury
could reasonably find that he did perform the job based on the fact that he held the position for
Case 1:24-cv-10025-IT Document 39 Filed 11/13/25 Page 19 of 24

20
four and a half months and no disciplinary issues or complaints were raised during that time—
including during the 90-day introductory period after he commenced employment.4
JetBlue’s argument that reassignment back to the ticketing counter would require JetBlue
to override its “seniority-based assignment system,” Def.’s Mem. 15 [Doc. No. 24], is not
supported with any evidence as to the details of the “seniority-based assignment system.”
Without those details, JetBlue has not explained why Ozek would not secure such a position
under the seniority-based assignment system, if permitted to bid, where the most junior Airport
Operations Crewmembers begin at the ticketing counter and Ozek would have seniority over any
new employees vying for the same position.
To the extent JetBlue argues that reassignment only to the ticketing counter would mean
substantially modifying the essential functions of the role by not requiring Ozek to rotate to other
roles, a jury could reasonably find that rotation was not in fact an essential function of the role.
See Cox, 414 Mass. at 384 (determining the essential functions of a role “should be based upon
more than statements in a job description and should reflect the actual functioning and
circumstances of the particular enterprise involved”) (internal quotations omitted).
Notwithstanding the job description and declarations reciting a general policy, the record
contains no specific examples of Airport Operations Crewmembers at the ticket counter being
rotated into other roles prior to successfully bidding on them. This did not occur during Ozek’s
4 JetBlue also argues that the transfer is unreasonable to the extent it would reallocate Ozek’s
“job function of answering Customer phone calls to his colleagues.” Def.’s Mem. 15 n.10 [Doc.
No. 24]. The record is ambiguous as to Crewmembers answering any customer-initiated phone
calls and common experience undermines the notion that Airport Operations Crewmembers
routinely answer customer phone calls. In any event, Ozek asserts that he never spoke by phone
with any customers at the ticketing counter, Pl.’s Aff. ¶ 15 [Doc. No. 27-1], and a jury could
reasonably interpret his deposition testimony to be consistent with this Affidavit in light of the
ambiguous line of questioning. See Pl.’s Dep. 143:13–17 [Doc. No. 22-4].
Case 1:24-cv-10025-IT Document 39 Filed 11/13/25 Page 20 of 24

21
time working at the ticket counter, and the record demonstrates that an employee would be
trained at another role, for example gates, only after bidding into that role.
Accordingly, JetBlue’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 21] is DENIED as to
the failure to accommodate argument as to Ozek’s request to be transferred back to the ticketing
counter.
ii. 	Request for Extended Leave to Pursue the Specialist Baggage
Recovery Position
Ozek argues that extending his period of unpaid leave until a Specialist Baggage
Recovery position opened would have been a reasonable accommodation because he had been
placed in a pool of eligible candidates for that position. Pl.’s Opp. 9–10 [Doc. No. 28]. However,
the reasonable accommodation analysis under Chapter 151B concerns “the position involved[,]”
M.G.L. c. 151B, § 4(16), and does not require an employer to transfer an employee to a different
position. Russell, 437 Mass. at 454. Because the Specialist Baggage Recovery Position is a
different position from the Airport Operations Crewmember position, an extension of his
position reassignment period would not have been a “reasonable accommodation” under Chapter
151B.
Because an extension of position reassignment was not a reasonable accommodation,
JetBlue’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 21] is GRANTED as to that request.
B. 	Count III: Retaliation
Retaliation is a “separate and independent cause of action.” Wright v. CompUSA, Inc.,
352 F.3d 472, 477 (1st Cir. 2003) (quoting Abramian v. President & Fellows of Harvard Coll.,
432 Mass. 107, 121, 731 N.E.2d 1075 (2000)). To succeed on a claim of retaliation, a plaintiff
must “show that: (1) he engaged in conduct protected under Massachusetts or federal law; (2) he
suffered an adverse employment action; and (3) a causal connection existed between the
Case 1:24-cv-10025-IT Document 39 Filed 11/13/25 Page 21 of 24

22
protected conduct and the adverse action.” Sullivan, 262 F.3d at 48 (internal citations and
quotation marks omitted). The plaintiff cannot rely “merely upon conclusory allegations,
improbable inferences, and unsupported speculation” to avoid summary judgment. See Feliciano
de la Cruz v. El Conguistador Resort & Country Club, 218 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2000) (internal
citation omitted). “Once the plaintiff has made a prima facie showing, the burden of production
shifts to the defendant to articulate a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for its employment
decision.” McMillan v. Massachusetts Soc. for Prevention of Cruelty To Animals, 140 F.3d 288,
309 (1st Cir. 1998) (internal citation omitted). “If the defendant does so, the plaintiff must show
that the defendant’s proffered reason was not, in fact, the real reason for the decision and that the
decision was the result of the defendant’s retaliatory animus.” Id.
Ozek bases his retaliation claim on events occurring after he reached out to ADA
Compliance in June 2022 to request a Bluetooth-compatible handheld radio as an
accommodation. He argues that he suffered adverse employment actions when JetBlue (1) “did
not select him for the position of Specialist Baggage Recovery” and (2) terminated his
employment after the expiration of his six months of position reassignment. Pl.’s Opp. 11–12
[Doc. No. 28]. Ozek argues that the causal link was supplied by the fact that “ADA Compliance
was communicating with Talent Acquisition, and therefore Talent Acquisition knew that [he]
was a part of JetBlue’s Position Reassignment program on the basis of disability.” Id. at 11.
The court finds these facts sufficient to support a prima facie case of retaliation and to
shift the burden to JetBlue to articulate non-retaliatory justifications for the adverse employment
actions.
1. 	Specialist Baggage Recovery Position
As to passing over Ozek for the Specialist Baggage Recovery position, JetBlue’s
proffered justification was that Ozek was deemed not as competitive as another candidate but
Case 1:24-cv-10025-IT Document 39 Filed 11/13/25 Page 22 of 24

23
was sufficiently competitive to be included in a pool of eligible candidates for the next available
opening. Merida Decl. ¶ 27 [Doc. No. 22-50]. Ozek disputes this justification, stating that
“[t]here is nothing in the record that establishes who was hired instead of Plaintiff and whether
that person was more or less qualified than Plaintiff.” Pl.’s Opp. 11 [Doc. No. 28]. But he offers
no evidence supporting an inference that the real reason he was passed over for the position was
JetBlue’s discriminatory animus. He therefore fails to satisfy his burden of showing that he was
not hired for the Specialist Baggage Recovery position because of pretext or discriminatory
animus, particularly where Ozek admits that “[n]o coworker or supervisor at JetBlue ever
insulted [his] ability to hear or communicate” or “ever made a statement about [his] hearing
loss[.]” SOF ¶¶ 320–21 [Doc. No. 27].5
Accordingly, JetBlue’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 21] is GRANTED as to
retaliation based on JetBlue not hiring Ozek for the Specialist Baggage Recovery position.
2. 	Termination
As to his administrative separation, JetBlue’s stated reasons were that Ozek could not
perform the essential functions of the Airport Operations Crewmember role and had exhausted
the six months of position reassignment without having obtained another position. Brito Decl.
¶¶ 92, 95 [Doc. No. 22-2]. However, as explained above, a jury could reasonably find that Ozek
5 Ozek cites U.S. Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391, 397 (2002), for the proposition that
“[b]y definition any special ‘accommodation’ requires the employer to treat an employee with a
disability differently, i.e., preferentially.” But Barnett arose under the ADA and does not support
the implication that Ozek was required to be treated preferentially for the Specialist Baggage
Recovery position and that the failure to so treat him is evidence of pretext or discriminatory
animus. To the contrary, as explained above, Chapter 151B does not require an employer to
transfer a handicapped employee to a vacant position. Russell, 437 Mass. at 454.
Case 1:24-cv-10025-IT Document 39 Filed 11/13/25 Page 23 of 24

24
could perform the essential functions of the Airport Operations Crewmember role at the ticket
counter, and that a transfer back to that role would have been a reasonable accommodation.
Accordingly, JetBlue’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 21] is DENIED as to
retaliation based on JetBlue failing to transfer Ozek to the ticket counter function and instead
terminating his employment.
IV. 	Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 21] is
GRANTED as unopposed as to hostile workplace and disparate treatment under Counts I and II,
GRANTED as to the request for extended leave under Counts I and II, and GRANTED as to
being passed over for the Specialist Baggage Recovery position under Count III. The motion is
DENIED as to the request for a transfer back to the ticketing counter under Counts I, II, and III.
This order is without prejudice to JetBlue filing a renewed motion for summary judgment
relating to the transfer back to the ticket counter function with supplemental record evidence as
to JetBlue’s rules regarding bidding on the ticket counter function, the actual practice at Boston
Logan Airport regarding such bidding, and the rotation of ticket counter employees to other
functions prior to successfully bidding out of that function. Any such motion must be filed within
30 days of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
November 13, 2025 	/s/ Indira Talwani
United States District Judge
Case 1:24-cv-10025-IT Document 39 Filed 11/13/25 Page 24 of 24