Buie v. Berrien
85 F. Supp. 3d 161
| D.D.C. | 2015Background
- Buie sues EEOC alleging Rehabilitation Act claims for failing to accommodate, retaliation, and hostile work environment.
- Defendant moved to dismiss or for summary judgment; authority substituted Jenny Yang as proper EEOC defendant.
- Buie has lung disease/asthma; worked in Washington DC office then transferred back to Charlotte in 2011; accommodation requests included telework and a private office with air purifier.
- Defendant allegedly explored private office options but Buie requested telework; the Charlotte office had available accommodations.
- The court analyzes each accommodation request, and finds no genuine dispute on most but allows telework claim to proceed to summary judgment stage; dismisses retaliation and hostile environment claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Buie’s failure to accommodate claim survives | Buie argues defendant failed to provide reasonable accommodations. | Defendant contends accommodations were feasible or provided; some requests were unreasonable or undue hardship. | Failure to accommodate claim survives in part; telework may be reasonable; other requests denied on summary judgment grounds. |
| Telework as reasonable accommodation | Telework could have enabled Buie to perform duties remotely in Washington. | Telework not feasible due to need to receive assignments/training and access to onsite files. | Summary judgment denied without prejudice as to telework portion; factual dispute remains. |
| Private office and air purifier as reasonable accommodation | Private office with air purifier was a reasonable accommodation Buie previously had in Charlotte. | Defendant actively sought an office; Buie later requested transfer to Charlotte; delay not a denial. | No reasonable jury could find denial; summary judgment granted for this aspect. |
| Transfer to GS-13 Mediator position as accommodation | Buie should have been transferred to the vacant GS-13 Mediator position as accommodation. | Buie not qualified for Mediator; transfer would not be a reasonable accommodation. | Not a reasonable accommodation; summary judgment for this aspect. |
| Retaliation and hostile work environment claims | Actions by supervisor Burks and accommodations process were retaliatory and created a hostile environment. | No materially adverse action or causal link shown; environment not sufficiently hostile. | Claims of retaliation and hostile environment dismissed; no plausible evidence of adverse action or causation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ward v. McDonald, 762 F.3d 24 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (interactive accommodation process is flexible and good faith required)
- Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (U.S. 2006) (adverse action standard for retaliation)
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., 510 U.S. 17 (U.S. 1993) (hostile environment standard: severity and pervasiveness)
- Morgan v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 536 U.S. 101 (U.S. 2002) (circumstantial hostile environment factors and totality of circumstances)
- Aka v. Washington Hospital Center, 156 F.3d 1284 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (employer not required to provide preferred accommodation; reasonable accommodation suffices)
- Porter v. Jackson, 410 F. App’x 348 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (evidence standard for reasonable accommodation and essential functions)
- Woodruff v. Peters, 482 F.3d 521 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (reasonableness and material fact considerations in accommodations)