Doak v. Napolitano, 19 F. Supp. 3d 259

Edna Doak, a Coast Guard employee, sues in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging disability discrimination and retaliation under the Rehabilitation Act.
Plaintiff alleges discrimination based on disabilities (hypothyroidism, depression, migraines, sleep apnea) and seeks an accommodation; she underwent multiple accommodation requests beginning in 2010.
Defendant Coast Guard implemented several accommodations (anti-glare screens, noise-cancelling headsets, sunglasses, dimmed lights, private area) but rejected requests for telework, a later start, and weekend hours as medically unsupported or impractical.
Doak had chronic attendance problems, with substantial AWOL days and late arrivals, leading to a Notice of Proposed Removal in August 2010 and a retirement settlement in October 2010; formal EEO complaint followed in 2011.
The court granted summary judgment for defendant on all counts, dismissing unexhausted or untimely claims and concluding no discrimination or retaliation under the Rehabilitation Act was proven.
The decision treats exhaustion as a jurisdictional requirement and finds no genuine triable issue on the merits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Doak failed to exhaust administrative remedies	Doak exhausted for some claims; timing and waiver issues argued.	Exhaustion was required for each discriminatory act and timely contact occurred too late for several claims.	Yes; failure to exhaust claims bars jurisdictional consideration.
Discrimination claim under the Rehabilitation Act	Disabilities caused unlawful discrimination; failure to accommodate and adverse actions show discrimination.	Reasons for removal were non-discriminatory and tied to attendance; no pretext established.	Discrimination claim failed; Department’s reasons were not shown to be pretextual.
Reasonable accommodation claim (failure to accommodate)	Telework, later start times, and weekend hours were reasonable accommodations.	Such requests were not reasonable given job requirements and unpredictable attendance.	Department reasonably accommodated Doak; open-ended or highly flexible schedules were unreasonable as a matter of law.
Retaliation claim under the Rehabilitation Act	Retaliation occurred after requesting accommodations; a causal link exists.	No pretext; removal based on chronic absenteeism and impact on team.	No reasonable inference of retaliation; judgment for defendant on retaliation.

Brady v. Office of Sergeant at Arms, 520 F.3d 490 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (disparate treatment framework; pretext requires true discriminatory reason)
Spinelli v. Goss, 446 F.3d 159 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (exhaustion under Rehabilitation Act is jurisdictional)
St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (U.S. 1993) (pretext requires that discrimination be the real reason)
Aka v. Washington Hosp. Center, 156 F.3d 1284 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (failure to accommodate not governed by McDonnell Douglas; specialized standard)
Scarborough v. Natsios, 190 F. Supp. 2d 5 (D.D.C. 2002) (open-ended accommodation requests may be unreasonable as a matter of law)
Carr v. Reno, 23 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (telework and modified schedules considered in context of essential functions)
Langon v. HHS, 959 F.2d 1053 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (telecommuting as potential accommodation; fact-specific analysis)
Solomon v. Vilsack, 845 F. Supp. 2d 61 (D.D.C. 2012) (open-ended schedule deemed unreasonable as a matter of law)