Elisa J. Yochim v. Benjamin S. Carson, Sr.
935 F.3d 586
7th Cir.2019Background
- Elisa Yochim, a HUD attorney of 26 years, underwent right-hand surgery (Nov. 2012) and requested telework and schedule adjustments during recovery and ongoing therapy.
- HUD’s legal department reorganized in Oct. 2012, shifting attorneys to more collaborative, in-office generalist duties; management discretion limited telework as a result.
- Yochim made multiple accommodation requests (Dec. 2012, Mar. 2013, Aug. 2014); HUD granted limited telework and schedule adjustments, offered alternatives (voice-recognition software, compressed schedules, ergonomic assessment, additional paralegal help, flexible leave), and at times suspended telework due to performance deficiencies.
- HUD placed Yochim on a sick-leave restriction after auditing excessive absences; she also received a written reprimand in 2014 for performance (incomplete assignments).
- Yochim filed EEO complaints, retired in May 2015, and sued under the Rehabilitation Act alleging failure to accommodate, bad-faith interactive process, retaliation, and hostile work environment. The district court granted HUD summary judgment; the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether HUD failed to provide a reasonable accommodation | Yochim: HUD denied requested telework (full January 2013 and 3–5 days/week in 2014) and thus failed to accommodate her disability | HUD: Offered reasonable alternatives tailored to medical limits and operational needs (adjusted hours, limited telework, leave, assistive tech) | Court: HUD offered reasonable accommodations; no rational jury could find failure to accommodate |
| Whether HUD engaged in the interactive process in bad faith | Yochim: Interactive process broke down; HUD responses were inadequate or insincere | HUD: Engaged in back-and-forth, proposed specific alternatives, explained operational constraints and performance-based telework suspension | Court: Parties engaged meaningfully; no evidence of bad faith by HUD |
| Whether HUD’s alternatives were ineffective | Yochim: Compressed schedule, limited telework, and leave did not address commute and therapy needs; leave restriction impeded therapy attendance | HUD: Medical records only showed need to avoid rush-hour crowds; alternatives (adjusted hours, leave, local therapy options) directly addressed those concerns | Court: Alternatives were effective and reasonable; Yochim failed to show they were insufficient |
| Hostile work environment / retaliation claim | Yochim: Restricting telework and imposing leave rules created a retaliatory, hostile environment causing premature retirement | HUD: Employment actions (reprimand, leave restriction, telework suspension) were permissible, nondiscriminatory, and performance-related | Court: Even assuming such a claim is cognizable, Yochim produced no evidence of severe or pervasive harassment; claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Milwaukee Bd. of Sch. Dirs., 855 F.3d 818 (7th Cir. 2017) (summary-judgment review standard and construing facts for nonmovant)
- Sansone v. Brennan, 917 F.3d 975 (7th Cir. 2019) (elements of Rehabilitation Act accommodation claim)
- Ozlowski v. Henderson, 237 F.3d 837 (7th Cir. 2001) (ADA standards applied under Rehabilitation Act)
- Lawler v. Peoria Sch. Dist. No. 150, 837 F.3d 779 (7th Cir. 2016) (interactive-process and good-faith obligation)
- Hoppe v. Lewis Univ., 692 F.3d 833 (7th Cir. 2012) (employer required to provide reasonable, not preferred, accommodation)
- Taylor-Novotny v. Health All. Med. Plans, Inc., 772 F.3d 478 (7th Cir. 2014) (plaintiff must initially show requested accommodation is reasonable on its face)
- Majors v. Gen. Elec. Co., 714 F.3d 527 (7th Cir. 2013) (same разум requirement for initial showing)
- Bilinksy v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 928 F.3d 565 (7th Cir. 2019) (jobs often require face-to-face collaboration; telework requires context-specific inquiry)
- Severson v. Heartland Woodcraft, Inc., 872 F.3d 476 (7th Cir. 2017) (modified work schedules are reasonable accommodations)
- Boss v. Castro, 816 F.3d 910 (7th Cir. 2016) (hostile-work-environment requires severe or pervasive harassment)
- Herron v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 388 F.3d 293 (7th Cir. 2004) (disciplinary action for performance is not necessarily actionable harassment)