275 F. Supp. 3d 70
D.D.C.2017Background
- Francis Butler, a WMATA bus operator and Local 922 union member, was placed on unpaid medical leave and ultimately retired after failing to regain DOT medical certification because of uncontrolled diabetes (A1c 10.9) and lack of compliant CPAP sleep-apnea reports.
- FMCSA/DOT rules require commercial drivers to hold valid DOT medical certification; WMATA requires CPAP compliance reports (4+ hours/night, ≥70% nights) for drivers with obstructive sleep apnea and treats A1c ≥9.5% as poorly controlled diabetes.
- Butler submitted an A1c in September 2014 showing control (~8.3) but repeatedly provided CPAP compliance reports that fell far below WMATA’s standards; WMATA medically disqualified him on August 13, 2014 for both conditions.
- WMATA referred Butler to its Section 16L internal reassignment program; Butler applied for several positions, many outside his bargaining unit (Local 689 positions) and for which he may have lacked qualifications; dispute exists over how actively WMATA helped him identify suitable vacancies.
- Butler sued under the Rehabilitation Act alleging discrimination (sleep apnea, diabetes), failure to accommodate (reassignment and alternative CPAP), constructive discharge, and unlawful testing. The court considered cross-motions for summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether WMATA unlawfully discriminated by preventing Butler from operating buses due to sleep apnea | Butler: his sleep apnea did not render him unable to perform essential functions; WMATA unlawfully kept him off duty | WMATA: Butler lacked required DOT medical certification because he failed to submit compliant CPAP data as required by FMCSA-based recertification rules | Court: WMATA entitled to summary judgment on discrimination claim — Butler was not medically qualified and WMATA’s actions were justified by regulatory requirements |
| Whether diabetes-based disqualification was unlawful or the A1c testing constituted an improper medical inquiry | Butler: A1c-based disqualification was improper or not individualized; testing unlawfully intrusive | WMATA: A1c testing is job-related, consistent with business necessity and required by FMCSA-aligned medical evaluation | Court: Diabetes claim fails — A1c was a legitimate basis and in any event CPAP noncompliance was the decisive barrier to recertification |
| Whether WMATA failed to reasonably accommodate Butler by reassigning him to a vacant position | Butler: he requested reassignment (attorney inquiries, placement in 16L, applications) and WMATA failed to identify suitable vacancies or assist adequately | WMATA: it referred Butler to 16L and provided postings; many positions had bargaining-unit restrictions or Butler was unqualified; Butler applied for non-unit jobs | Court: Genuine disputes of material fact remain about existence of appropriate vacancies, the assistance WMATA provided, and which party caused any breakdown — denial of summary judgment for both parties on reassignment claim |
| Whether WMATA was required to provide or pay for a battery-powered CPAP or otherwise accommodate testing costs | Butler: lack of electricity prevented CPAP use and WMATA should have provided alternative device | WMATA: employer is not obligated to pay for CPAP devices; employees obtain CPAP via insurance; WMATA paid the exam but not ancillary device costs | Court: WMATA had no duty to provide or pay for CPAP device — summary judgment for WMATA on this claim |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (framework for burden-shifting in discrimination cases)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- Aka v. Washington Hosp. Ctr., 156 F.3d 1284 (D.C. Cir.) (reassignment as accommodation; employer obligations)
- Ward v. McDonald, 762 F.3d 24 (D.C. Cir.) (failure-to-accommodate and interactive process principles)
- Carr v. Reno, 23 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir.) (employer need not retain unqualified employee)
- Harris v. P.A.M. Transp., Inc., 339 F.3d 635 (8th Cir.) (DOT medical-card requirement can render driver unqualified)
- Bay v. Cassens Transp. Co., 212 F.3d 969 (7th Cir.) (similar treatment of DOT medical requirement)
- Bates v. United Parcel Serv., 511 F.3d 974 (9th Cir.) (DOT certification treated as employer qualification defense)
- Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. [EEOC], 417 F.3d 789 (7th Cir.) (interactive process and employer/employee responsibilities)
- Alston v. WMATA, 571 F. Supp. 2d 77 (D.D.C.) (reassignment limited by contractual/seniority rights; what constitutes a ‘vacant’ position)