489 F. App'x 637
4th Cir.2012Background
- Perry has monocular vision with no vision in the left eye and reduced vision in the right eye but uses corrective devices to function.
- He joined the USPTO as a patent examiner on January 22, 2007 and could perform essential duties with accommodations, including a potentially flexible schedule.
- A pay-advance dispute with HR Irondi and supervisor Pwu led Perry to claim racial discrimination and later involvement with OCR and EEO processes.
- Perry ultimately was terminated on May 23, 2007 for performance reasons, with the USPTO citing missed due dates and limited growth potential.
- The district court granted summary judgment: Rehabilitation Act claim failed for lack of disability; Title VII retaliation claim failed for lack of causation; Perry appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Disability under the Rehabilitation Act | Perry’s monocularity substantially limits seeing. | Mitigating measures and general functioning show no substantial limitation. | Perry not disabled under the Act. |
| Causation for Title VII retaliation | Temporal proximity between complaint and discharge shows retaliation. | Temporal proximity alone is insufficient; no evidence of animus. | No actionable retaliation claim. |
| Scope of substantial limitation standard | Monocular vision with corrective devices constitutes substantial limitation. | Mitigating measures negate substantial limitation; case-specific facts control. | Significant mitigating evidence; not substantially limited. |
Key Cases Cited
- Toyota Motor Mfg. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002) (substantiality standard for disability demands, with mitigation considered)
- Albertson’s, Inc. v. Kirkingburg, 527 U.S. 555 (1999) (monocularity not per se disabled; need substantial limitation evidence)
- Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999) (mitigation must be considered when assessing disability)
- Foore v. City of Richmond, 6 F. App’x 148 (2001) (monocularity case; impairment overcome with devices; not substantially limited)
- Heiko v. Colombo Sav. Bank, 434 F.3d 249 (2006) (strict, individualized disability analysis under the Act)
- Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268 (2001) (temporal proximity cannot alone establish causation in retaliation)
- King v. Rumsfeld, 328 F.3d 145 (2003) (tenuous temporal proximity insufficient without other evidence of retaliation)
- Lettieri v. Equant Inc., 478 F.3d 640 (2007) (need additional evidence beyond temporal proximity)
- Pascual v. Lowe’s Home Ctrs., Inc., 193 F. App’x 229 (2006) (three-month gap too long to infer causation absent other evidence)
- EEOC v. Xerxes Corp., 639 F.3d 658 (2011) (standards for summary judgment and retaliation analysis)