Field v. Napolitano
663 F.3d 505
1st Cir.2011Background
- Field, a TSA airport screener, had diabetes with foot ulcers requiring restricted duty and periods off work.
- Field was ultimately terminated in 2006 for excessive absence and not following instructions.
- Field sued in district court alleging discrimination and retaliation under the Rehabilitation Act after exhausting administrative remedies.
- District court dismissed the claims, holding ATSA preempts Rehabilitation Act remedies for TSA screeners.
- First Circuit affirms: ATSA §111(d) precludes private suits under Rehabilitation Act for security screeners.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ATSA preempts Rehabilitation Act claims | Field contends Rehabilitation Act rights apply despite ATSA. | TSA argues ATSA §111(d) bars Rehabilitation Act claims for screeners. | ATSA preempts Rehabilitation Act claims for screeners. |
| Effect of 'notwithstanding' provisions in ATSA | Notwithstanding clauses do not bar Rehabilitation Act claims in all cases. | Notwithstanding language demonstrates override of other laws, including the Rehabilitation Act. | Notwithstanding clauses explicit override of other laws; preemption upheld. |
| EEOC role and TSA directives affect on ATSA preemption | EEOC interpretations and TSA directives could limit preemption. | ATSA assigns interpretive authority to TSA, not EEOC, and directives do not waive §111(d). | EEOC role cannot override ATSA; directives do not waive preemption. |
Key Cases Cited
- Joren v. Napolitano, 633 F.3d 1144 (7th Cir. 2011) (ATSA plain-language preemption of Rehabilitation Act for screeners)
- Castro v. Sec'y of Homeland Sec., 472 F.3d 1334 (11th Cir. 2006) (ATSA language indicates no Rehabilitation Act considerations for screeners)
- Conyers v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 388 F.3d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (Section 111(d) exempts TSA from otherwise applicable laws)
- Conyers v. Rossides, 558 F.3d 137 (2d Cir. 2009) (Agency discretion in employment decisions committed to TSA)
- Wong v. Regents of Univ. of California, 192 F.3d 807 (9th Cir. 1999) (Concession to a disabled individual does not obligate future accommodations)