557 F. App'x 273
5th Cir.2014Background
- Cohen, diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis, was hired in Aug 2009 as a clinical data specialist at UT Health Science Center at Tyler (UTHSC); much of the role involved supporting the StudyManager clinical trial system.
- Cohen identified data-integrity problems with StudyManager; UTHSC ceased implementation and later declined alternatives due to budget cuts, reducing the core duties of Cohen’s position.
- Cohen had hand surgery in March 2010, sought temporary accommodations (adaptive keyboard, requested voice-recognition software), and returned on modified duty; she later withdrew the voice-recognition request.
- On June 1, 2010, UTHSC informed Cohen her position was being eliminated as part of a reduction in force (RIF); she briefly worked in IT, then was terminated (discharge letter cited RIF).
- Cohen sued under the Rehabilitation Act for failure to accommodate, discrimination, and retaliation; the magistrate judge (by consent the district judge) granted summary judgment for UTHSC, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cohen was discriminated against on basis of disability (Rehabilitation Act) | Cohen contends termination and demotion were due to disability and/or accommodation requests | UTHSC says position was eliminated in a legitimate RIF because StudyManager-related duties disappeared | Court assumed prima facie but held UTHSC’s RIF explanation was legitimate and Cohen failed to show pretext |
| Whether UTHSC retaliated for requesting voice-recognition software | Cohen contends her accommodation request was protected activity and causally linked to adverse action | UTHSC asserts termination resulted from elimination of position unrelated to accommodation request | Held no pretext; summary judgment affirmed because evidence does not show termination would not have occurred but for the request |
| Whether McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting properly governs these Rehabilitation Act claims | Cohen argued McDonnell Douglas was improperly applied (esp. to failure-to-accommodate) | UTHSC applied McDonnell Douglas at summary judgment | Court applied McDonnell Douglas to discrimination/retaliation; noted failure-to-accommodate may be treated differently but Cohen did not press facts undermining UTHSC’s accommodation-related evidence |
| Whether record evidence (RIF-of-one, internal emails, position described as still open) shows pretext | Cohen points to RIF-of-one, email quote, and discrepancies about whether position remained open or grant-funded | UTHSC points to testimony that core duties ended when StudyManager was abandoned and that position remained unfilled | Court held these items do not create genuine dispute of material fact as to pretext; evidence supports RIF rationale |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden-shifting framework for circumstantial discrimination claims)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (U.S. 2000) (pretext may be shown by proving employer’s explanation is unworthy of credence)
- Nassar v. Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr., 133 S. Ct. 2517 (U.S. 2013) (causation standard in retaliation context referenced)
- Frame v. City of Arlington, 657 F.3d 215 (5th Cir. 2011) (ADA and Rehabilitation Act interpreted jointly)
- Washburn v. Harvey, 504 F.3d 505 (5th Cir. 2007) (elements of Rehabilitation Act discrimination claim)
- E.E.O.C. v. Tex. Instruments Inc., 100 F.3d 1173 (5th Cir. 1996) (RIF can be legitimate nondiscriminatory reason)
- Laxton v. Gap Inc., 333 F.3d 572 (5th Cir. 2003) (explanation is false if not real reason for adverse action)
- Feist v. La., Dep’t of Justice, Office of the Att’y Gen., 730 F.3d 450 (5th Cir. 2013) (discussion of failure-to-accommodate and related standards)