Doe v. Gates
828 F. Supp. 2d 266
D.D.C.2011Background
- Jane Doe, a DIA civilian employee, sues former Secretary Gates claiming Rehabilitation Act violations.
- Doe has bipolar affective mood disorder; DIA initially allowed her to deploy abroad before determining she was not deployable for Dubai TDY in 2009.
- CENTCOM Mod 9 disqualified psychotic/bipolar disorders for deployment; Doe sought a waiver, which DIA denied.
- Doe filed an EEO complaint proposing four accommodations; DIA dismissed the complaint under CENTCOM Mod 9, which was later replaced.
- DIA later abandoned CENTCOM Mod 9 in 2010 and implemented DOD Instruction 6490.07, evaluating accommodations individually.
- Defendant moved to dismiss or grant summary judgment; the court granted the motion in favor of Gates.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Disparate treatment: was there an adverse action due to disability? | Doe alleges denial of Dubai TDY harmed terms of employment. | No tangible adverse employment action; denial of one travel opportunity is not enough. | No adverse action; disparate treatment claim dismissed. |
| Disparate impact: was a facially neutral policy causing disproportionate impact? | Policy discriminates against those with bipolar disorder. | CENTCOM Mod 9 already disqualified; no facially neutral practice identified; exhausted remedies issue remains. | Disparate impact claim dismissed. |
| Reasonable accommodation: is the claim moot due to policy changes? | DIA failed to provide reasonable accommodations for deployment. | Policy replaced; future requests will be assessed; potential recurrence is unlikely. | Moot; accommodation claim dismissed. |
| Other counts (confidential medical information, medical inquiry) and policy implementation claims? | Atypical handling and misuse of medical information; improper inquiries. | No proper basis or exhaustion; inquiries relate to job performance; no jurisdiction over V–VI. | Counts V–VI dismissed; lack of exhaustion; no jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971) (disparate impact doctrine requires facially neutral policy with adverse real-world effect)
- Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for surviving a Rule 12(b)(6) motion)
- Spinelli v. Goss, 446 F.3d 159 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (administrative exhaustion requirement under Rehabilitation Act)
- Duncan v. WMATA, 240 F.3d 1110 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (standards for prima facie disparate treatment claims)
- Edwards v. U.S. EPA, 456 F. Supp. 2d 72 (D.D.C. 2006) (adverse action needs tangible impact on terms and conditions)
- Howard v. Gutierrez, 571 F. Supp. 2d 145 (D.D.C. 2008) (prima facie case for failure to accommodate)