
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                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                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-
