Ella Ward v. Robert A. McDonald, 412 U.S. App. D.C. 24

Background

Ella Ward, a BVA attorney advisor, developed chronic lymphedema requiring 1–3 hour daily treatments that are exacerbated by prolonged sitting; she requested a full-time work-from-home (flexiplace) accommodation in 2007.
Ward submitted two brief physician letters describing treatment needs and that working from home would help, but both left open whether she could sustain full-time hours.
BVA supervisors met with Ward multiple times, requested more detailed medical information about her ability to sit for long periods and to transport case files, and sent a June 5 memo enumerating specific information needed to process the flexiplace request.
Ward resigned six days after the June 5 memo and later alleged the BVA denied her reasonable accommodation and constructively discharged her; BVA later (during litigation) sent an August 8 letter saying it would consider full-time telework.
The district court granted summary judgment to the VA Secretary on both failure-to-accommodate and constructive-discharge claims; the D.C. Circuit majority affirmed, concluding Ward abandoned the interactive process and the BVA acted in good faith.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Failure to accommodate under the Rehabilitation Act	Ward argues BVA denied her reasonable accommodation (full-time telework) and obstructed process; she was a qualified individual who could perform essential functions with accommodation	BVA argues it engaged in a good-faith interactive process, requested necessary medical details to assess feasibility, and Ward abandoned the process by resigning	Affirmed for defendant: no reasonable jury could find denial because BVA sought needed information and Ward cut off the process
Interactive-process breakdown — who caused it?	Ward: supervisors’ June 5 demands were irrelevant, excessive, and not required for flexiplace; supervisors obstructed process	BVA: requested information was necessary to identify limitations and reasonable accommodations where need was not obvious	Held for defendant: employer acted in good faith; when need not obvious, employer may request documentation; Ward failed to supply it
Constructive discharge	Ward: refusal/delay in accommodation made working conditions intolerable, forcing resignation	BVA: no discriminatory intent; accommodation process ongoing and acted in good faith	Affirmed for defendant: constructive-discharge claim fails because failure-to-accommodate claim fails (no evidence of intentional discrimination)
Relevance of flexiplace policy and comparators	Ward: flexiplace criteria entitled her to telework like other employees; BVA applied atypical hurdles	BVA: flexiplace is discretionary and fact-specific; other telework approvals included adequate medical documentation	Held: existence of a telework policy and other approvals is relevant but does not show bad faith here; BVA permissibly sought individualized medical information

Key Cases Cited

Stewart v. St. Elizabeths Hosp., 589 F.3d 1305 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (interactive process and employer may request documentation when need not obvious)
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. EEOC, 417 F.3d 789 (7th Cir. 2005) (interactive process requires good-faith give-and-take; courts isolate cause of breakdown)
Beck v. Univ. of Wis. Bd. of Regents, 75 F.3d 1130 (7th Cir. 1996) (employer not liable where it repeatedly sought needed information and employee failed to provide it)
Templeton v. Neodata Servs., Inc., 162 F.3d 617 (10th Cir. 1998) (employer cannot propose accommodation absent critical medical information withheld by employee)
Jackson v. City of Chicago, 414 F.3d 806 (7th Cir. 2005) (employee withholding information can cause interactive-process breakdown)
Mogenhan v. Napolitano, 613 F.3d 1162 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (Rehabilitation Act incorporates ADA standards for qualified individuals and reasonable accommodations)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment standard; plaintiff must show essential element of claim)