Bonnette v. Shinseki
907 F. Supp. 2d 54
D.D.C.2012Background
- Bonnette is totally blind and employed by the VA under Schedule A starting March 2007 with a two-year probation.
- She was nonconverted at the end of probation (Feb 2009), then reinstated in March 2009 under Therit with a return-to-work plan and a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP).
- She was terminated again in March 2010 and a security alert barred her admission to the building.
- She claims discrimination based on disability, retaliation for EEO complaints, and failure to reasonably accommodate; court treats claims under the Rehabilitation Act.
- VA argues most actions are not actionable adverse actions and that accommodations were provided; court grants summary judgment for VA on all counts.
- Court views the Rehabilitation Act as the exclusive remedy for federal employment discrimination based on disability and applies ADA/Title VII-inspired standards accordingly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act | Bonnette alleges disability-based discrimination. | Actions were not adverse and proffered explanations are legitimate. | Summary judgment for VA; discrimination claim fails. |
| Retaliation for EEO activity | Adverse actions followed Bonnette's EEO complaints. | Actions not materially adverse; reasons are legitimate. | Summary judgment for VA; retaliation claim fails. |
| Reasonable accommodation | VA failed to provide reasonable accommodations (reader, service dog, restrooms). | VA provided reader, service dog support, and restroom access; accommodations reasonable. | Summary judgment for VA; accommodations deemed reasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (framework for discrimination claims; burden shifting)
- Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (U.S. 2006) (adverse action standard in retaliation cases)
- Jones v. Bernanke, 557 F.3d 670 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (retaliation framework; proof of causation and pretext)
- Texas Dept. of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1981) (premise that burden shifts to employer after prima facie case)
- Woodruff v. Peters, 482 F.3d 521 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (ADA/ Rehabilitation Act interplay; exclusive remedy for federal employment)