752 F. Supp. 2d 540
E.D. Pa.2010Background
- Richard Boandl, a disabled former IRS employee, alleges disability-, age-, and gender-based discrimination in promotion, accommodations, evaluations, retaliation, hostile environment, and constructive discharge.
- Boandl applied for two Revenue Agent promotions in 2003; rankings used last performance appraisal (pre-2003) plus subjective potential scores; he was not selected for either position.
- Boandl sought a cell phone as a disability accommodation in 2003; supervisor denied; subsequent EEO proceedings followed.
- Boandl received negative performance evaluations and an opportunity-to-improve letter in 2004 after TIGTA referral discussions and alleged policy violations.
- He retired in October 2004 amid deteriorating relations with management; later sought enrolled agent status (2007) with contested information forwarded to OPR.
- Boandl filed a three-count federal lawsuit in 2009 alleging violations of the Rehabilitation Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and Title VII; defendant moved for partial summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to accommodate under the Rehab Act | Boandl seeks accommodation; denial of a cell phone impeded job functions. | No essential function required a cell phone; records show no accommodation need. | Partial denial of summary judgment; triable issue on reasonableness of accommodation. |
| Rehabilitation Act retaliation—negative evaluations and TIGTA referral | Retaliation for EEO activity evidenced by timing and treatment. | Some actions not adverse; others legitimate business reasons. | Negative evaluations survive as triable; TIGTA referral not an adverse action; pretext arguments proceed. |
| Age discrimination in promotion under ADEA | Boandl was more qualified; younger employees selected; age bias. | Promotion decisions based on ranking and past performance; legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons. | Summary judgment granted for defendant; no triable issue on age discrimination. |
| Title VII gender discrimination in promotion | Women selected over Boandl despite qualifications; reverse discrimination. | Promotion based on ranking panel; no evidence of discriminatory motive. | Summary judgment granted for defendant; no Title VII violation established. |
| Hostile environment and constructive discharge under Rehab Act/other acts | Harassment degradedworking conditions; retaliation linked to EEOC activity. | Conduct was not sufficiently severe or pervasive; not shown to be linked to protected status. | Hostile environment claims dismissed; constructive discharge claim allowed to proceed under Rehab Act. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chandler v. Roudebush, 425 U.S. 840 (1976) (federal employee de novo review under Rehab/Title VII)
- Morris v. Rumsfeld, 410 F.3d 223 (3d Cir. 2005) (application of Chandler to disability discrimination)
- Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (U.S. 2006) (materially adverse standard for retaliation claims (objective view))
- Wishkin v. Potter, 476 F.3d 180 (3d Cir. 2007) (ADA/Rehab Act standards applied to federal employers)
- Taylor v. Phoenixville School Dist., 184 F.3d 296 (3d Cir. 1999) (interactive process and reasonable accommodation duties)
- Donahue v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 224 F.3d 226 (3d Cir. 2000) (reasonable accommodation prima facie framework under Rehab Act/ADA)
- Fuentes v. Perskie, 32 F.3d 759 (3d Cir. 1994) (pretext framework in McDonnell Douglas pattern)
- Chisholm v. U.S. Dept. of the Treasury, n/a (n/a) ((referenced in discussion of administrative record and de novo review))