Carmen Matthews v. Robert McDonald, 698 F. App'x 550

Carmen Matthews, a former federal employee, appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in her employment discrimination suit against the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Matthews brought Title VII claims (harassment, discrimination, retaliation), Rehabilitation Act claims (disability discrimination and failure to accommodate), and various state and constitutional claims including § 1981, § 1983, Fourteenth Amendment, Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940, and tort claims.
The district court granted summary judgment to defendants, excluding certain handwritten notes and unauthenticated deposition transcripts from the summary-judgment record.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo and considered whether Matthews had administratively exhausted her Title VII claims and whether she produced evidence creating genuine disputes of material fact on discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation, and Rehabilitation Act claims.
The panel affirmed: Matthews failed to show her claims were within her EEOC complaints or timely exhausted, failed to establish adverse actions or severe/pervasive harassment, and failed to show termination was because of disability or that reasonable accommodation was requested/denied.
The court also held Title VII is the exclusive remedy for federal employees on these facts and the ADA does not apply to the federal government, justifying dismissal of overlapping statutory and tort claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Title VII claims were administratively exhausted	Matthews contends her EEOC complaints covered the alleged claims	Defendants say claims were not included in EEOC charges and were untimely	No exhaustion shown; summary judgment affirmed
Whether Matthews established discrimination, harassment, or retaliation under Title VII	Matthews argues she suffered adverse actions, hostile work environment, and retaliation	Defendants argue no adverse employment action and conduct not severe or pervasive; no evidence of pretext	Matthews failed to raise genuine disputes; summary judgment affirmed
Whether Matthews showed disability-based termination or failure to accommodate under Rehabilitation Act	Matthews asserts termination and lack of accommodations due to disability	Defendants contend no causal link "because of" disability and no proper accommodation request or insufficient evidence	No genuine dispute on causation or reasonable accommodation; summary judgment affirmed
Whether non-Title VII/ADA claims can proceed (§ 1981, § 1983, Fourteenth Amendment, state law, torts)	Matthews seeks relief under multiple statutes and tort theories	Defendants argue Title VII is the exclusive remedy for federal employees and ADA excludes the federal government	Court held Title VII exclusive here and ADA inapplicable to U.S.; other claims barred

B.K.B. v. Maui Police Dep’t, 276 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2002) (claim must fall within or be reasonably related to EEOC charge to be exhausted)
Lyons v. England, 307 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2002) (federal employees must consult EEOC counselor within 45 days to exhaust Title VII)
Fonseca v. Sysco Food Servs. of Ariz., Inc., 374 F.3d 840 (9th Cir. 2004) (plaintiff must show adverse employment action to prove discrimination)
Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054 (9th Cir. 2002) (elements and burden-shifting framework for discriminatory termination and retaliation claims)
Walton v. U.S. Marshals Serv., 492 F.3d 998 (9th Cir. 2007) (prima facie disability discrimination requires showing termination "because of" disability)
Vinson v. Thomas, 288 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2002) (agency may require reasonable evidence of disability before providing accommodations)
Nolan v. Cleland, 686 F.2d 806 (9th Cir. 1982) (Title VII is the exclusive remedy for federal employees when claims arise from same factual predicate)
El Pollo Loco, Inc. v. Hashim, 316 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir. 2003) (standard of review for motions to strike evidence on summary judgment)