In an employment discrimination and breach of contract case, district court's judgment is affirmed where: 1) district court did not err in jury instructions with respect to SSDI as receipt of SSDI benefits creates a rebuttable presumption that the employee cannot perform the essential functions of the job; 2) district court did not err in the accommodation instruction as in this case, an employer's duty to accommodate does not arise unless the employee is able to perform the essential functions of his job with an accommodation; and 3) district court did not commit procedural error as plaintiff failed to contemporaneously object when the district court implemented the challenged procedure, and under the 2003 amendments to FRCP 51 the district court is under no obligation to give the parties the full text of its intended instructions at any time before the jury is charged.
Appeal from the United State District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Decided September 2, 2009
For Appellant: Tani E. Sapirstein , of Sapirstein & Sapirstein, P.C.
For Appellee: Neil Jacobs, Harry T. Daniels, Shari G. Kleiner, Tina Marisam, and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP