643 F.Supp.3d 203
D.D.C.2022Background
- Plaintiff Roger A. Congress, an FDIC Information Management Analyst (Internet Coordinator), suffers from anxiety, depression, and panic attacks and requested reasonable accommodations on May 21, 2018.
- Congress said he could not perform Adobe CQ ‘‘coding’’ intranet/internet tasks assigned to him; FDIC supervisors had issued a Letter of Warning (Jan 2018) and placed him on a PIP (June 7, 2018).
- He requested (1) a change in assignments (no CQ work), (2) telework, (3) an end to pressure to retire/PIP, and (4) reassignment; he later provided medical authorization for evaluation.
- FDIC denied removal of CQ duties, sought medical documentation for telework, then authorized limited telework (one regular day plus as-needed days) on Aug 9, 2018 and began evaluating reassignments; an NPS issued Oct 4, 2018 was never served.
- Congress retired Oct 31, 2018. On summary judgment the court granted FDIC judgment on all discrimination and retaliation claims and on most accommodation requests, but denied summary judgment only as to the failure‑to‑accommodate claim concerning a change in work assignments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Adobe CQ assignments were an "essential function" of the Internet Coordinator role | Congress: CQ tasks were not essential; he could perform other liaison/project duties and thus was a qualified individual | FDIC: employer testimony, position description, and governance plan show CQ work is essential; substantial deference to employer | Genuine dispute of material fact exists; the essential‑function issue is for the jury (precludes summary judgment on related accommodation claim) |
| Failure to accommodate by changing assignments (redistribution of CQ tasks) | Congress requested reassignment of CQ duties (job restructuring/job‑reassignment of marginal functions) and FDIC could have redistributed CQ work to contractors/others | FDIC: removing duties would fundamentally alter the position; management not required to reimagine the job | Summary judgment DENIED as to change in assignments — factual disputes remain about reasonableness/undue hardship |
| Telework request (timing and denial) | Congress: delay and initial denial were unreasonable | FDIC: requested medical documentation, provided interim case‑by‑case telework, and granted regular telework Aug 9, 2018; delay was short and justified | Summary judgment GRANTED for FDIC — telework was timely considered and ultimately granted; delay not unreasonable |
| Reassignment as accommodation | Congress: FDIC did not identify a vacancy and effectively failed to reassign | FDIC: actively searched and evaluated vacancies, notified Congress; no suitable vacancy identified before his retirement | Summary judgment GRANTED for FDIC — plaintiff failed to show an available suitable vacancy before he retired |
| Discrimination and retaliation (PIP, NPS, threats, persistent CQ assignments) | Congress: placement on PIP, NPS, threats to fire/withhold pension, and repeated CQ assignments were retaliatory/discriminatory after his accommodation request | FDIC: legitimate non‑retaliatory reason — longstanding performance problems, warnings and LOW predating the accommodation request; NPS not served; threats were uncorroborated/hearsay | Summary judgment GRANTED for FDIC on discrimination and retaliation claims except court found a triable issue only as to whether placement on the PIP could be a materially adverse action; after reviewing pretext evidence the court GRANTED summary judgment on the PIP retaliation claim as well |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden‑shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Solomon v. Vilsack, 763 F.3d 1 (elements of a Rehabilitation Act failure‑to‑accommodate claim)
- Aka v. Washington Hosp. Ctr., 116 F.3d 876 (interactive process and accommodation principles)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (retaliation materially adverse standard)
- Ward v. McDonald, 762 F.3d 24 (employer must engage in good‑faith interactive process)
- Baloch v. Kempthorne, 550 F.3d 1191 (adverse action analysis for retaliation)
- U.S. Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391 (undue hardship and fundamental alteration analysis)
- Swanks v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 179 F.3d 929 (deference to employer on essential functions)
- Taylor v. Rice, 451 F.3d 898 (undue hardship and employer burden to show special circumstances)