Dones v. Brennan, 147 F. Supp. 3d 364

Background

Dones worked as a USPS mail processor (1993–2010) and suffered chronic neck and back injuries requiring no neck-twisting and a swivel chair per his doctor.
USPS assigned Dones light-duty work and provided a stationary rest bar, but supervisors repeatedly denied his requests for a swivel chair; Dones alleges continued pain and frequent leave.
Dones retired effective October 5, 2010 after denial of his September 2010 swivel-chair request, then filed EEO charges alleging disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation under the Rehabilitation Act (and related federal statutes).
The court previously dismissed some claims; remaining at summary judgment were failure-to-accommodate and retaliation claims under the Rehabilitation Act (constructive-discharge and other discrimination claims resolved earlier).
USPS defended by saying it provided reasonable accommodations (modified duties and rest bar) and that supervisors denied the chair because they believed Dones had to route the request through the Department of Labor; USPS did not claim undue hardship from providing a chair.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether USPS failed to provide a reasonable accommodation under the Rehabilitation Act	Denial of a swivel chair (prescribed by physician) was ineffective accommodation because rest bar and modified duties still required neck-twisting and caused pain	USPS provided reasonable accommodations (modified duties and rest bar); employer need not provide employee’s preferred accommodation	Denied summary judgment for USPS on failure-to-accommodate — genuine dispute whether accommodations were effective; swivel chair could be reasonable and effective
Whether denial of a swivel chair constitutes materially adverse action for retaliation claim	Denial could dissuade a reasonable employee from filing a discrimination charge; Dones experienced ongoing pain	Denial of chair was not an adverse action; unrelated to protected activity	Court found denial could be adverse but granted summary judgment to USPS on retaliation for lack of pretext evidence (see below)
Whether USPS’s stated nondiscriminatory reason is pretext for retaliation	Dones argues supervisors’ stated belief (that requests had to go to Dept. of Labor) was incorrect and masks retaliatory motive	Supervisors honestly believed request procedure required referral to Department of Labor; perception of decisionmaker controls	Granted summary judgment for USPS on retaliation — supervisors’ mistaken belief was credible and Dones failed to show pretext
Whether Dones’s constructive discharge/retaliatory constructive discharge claim survives	Dones contends forced retirement followed denials and intolerable conditions	USPS contends no intolerable working conditions amounting to constructive discharge	Summary judgment granted for USPS on constructive discharge — insufficient evidence of objectively intolerable conditions

Key Cases Cited

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment and genuine-issue standard)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (view facts in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (retaliation: materially adverse standard)
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (pretext and burden-shifting framework)
Holland v. Washington Homes, Inc., 487 F.3d 208 (decisionmaker’s perception relevant to pretext inquiry)
Hill v. Lockheed Martin Logistics Mgmt., Inc., 354 F.3d 277 (burden-shifting in retaliation context)
Wilson v. Dollar Gen. Corp., 717 F.3d 337 (failure-to-accommodate prima facie elements)