Mattioda v. Nelson, 98 F.4th 1164 (9th Cir. 2024)

Dr. Andrew Mattioda, a NASA scientist, sued the agency for discrimination and hostile work environment that allegedly began after he informed his supervisors of a disability to his hips and spine and requested upgraded airline tickets for work-related travel.  The district court dismissed on summary judgment both the discrimination and hostile work environment claims, but the Ninth Circuit reversed the judgment as to the latter.  Dr. Mattioda alleged that after he reported his disabilities to NASA, he received derogatory comments from his supervisors, diminished work opportunities, unwarranted negative job reviews and resistance to his requests for accommodation.  After one of his supervisors learned of the cost of the requested travel upgrades, the supervisor openly discussed Dr. Mattioda’s disabilities in front of others, compared the alleged disabilities to the supervisor’s own hip issues and asked Dr. Mattioda why he could not just “tough it out or suck it up and travel coach.”  The Ninth Circuit held that Dr. Mattioda had alleged a plausible causal nexus between the claimed harassment and his disabilities. Further, the Court determined that the alleged harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to survive summary judgment.  Finally, the Court affirmed dismissal of Dr. Mattioda’s disability discrimination claim on the ground that NASA’s proffered legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for selecting another employee for a promotion instead of Dr. Mattioda was not pretext for discrimination because the other candidate had more relevant experience.