Hannah P. v. Daniel Coats
916 F.3d 327
| 4th Cir. | 2019Background
- Hannah, a term employee at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), had a long history of strong performance but was diagnosed with depression during her tenure and treated with counseling and medication.
- She worked irregular "maxi flex" hours while coordinating the Snowden response; after the assignment ended her schedule and attendance became more erratic, with multiple late arrivals and some unplanned absences in spring 2015.
- Supervisors met with Hannah and implemented an attendance plan (arrive by 10 AM or notify supervisors); when problems persisted they revised the plan and referred her to a mandatory-seeming Employee Assistance Program (EAP) before approving medically recommended leave.
- Hannah requested four weeks of leave on April 9, 2015 (her psychiatrist recommended it); ODNI deferred final approval pending EAP, and ultimately approved leave on May 5, 2015; Hannah took leave May 5–June 1, 2015.
- Shortly after returning, she interviewed for a permanent Cyber position, was recommended by the panel, but ODNI’s Chief Management Officer declined to approve the hire citing attendance concerns; Hannah exhausted administrative remedies and sued under the Rehabilitation Act and the FMLA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to accommodate (Rehab. Act) | Hannah: ODNI refused a reasonable accommodation (timely leave) and did not engage in a proper interactive process. | ODNI: Provided reasonable accommodations (attendance plan; EAP referral) and ultimately approved leave; plaintiff withdrew and later renewed request. | Court: Summary judgment for ODNI — accommodations were reasonable and interactive process satisfied. |
| Mandatory medical examination / inquiries (Rehab. Act) | Hannah: EAP sessions functioned as a required medical exam and elicited protected medical information. | ODNI: EAP is voluntary (and counselor denied performing medical exam); referral was job-related given attendance issues. | Court: Summary judgment for ODNI — EAP not shown to be a prohibited exam and, alternatively, was job-related and consistent with business necessity. |
| Confidentiality / misuse of medical info (Rehab. Act) | Hannah: Supervisors and EAP disclosed confidential medical details and used them against her. | ODNI: Hannah voluntarily disclosed her diagnosis; EAP did not disclose medical information and decision relied on attendance, not diagnosis. | Court: Summary judgment for ODNI — disclosures were voluntary or nonmedical, and hiring decision was based on attendance. |
| Failure to hire / discrimination (Rehab. Act) | Hannah: Not hiring her for permanent position was disability discrimination; proffered reasons are pretext. | ODNI: Legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason — significant attendance/timeliness problems. | Court: Summary judgment for ODNI — plaintiff failed to show pretext; attendance was legitimate basis. |
| FMLA interference (notice) | Hannah: Her disclosures of depression and psychiatrist’s recommendation for leave put ODNI on notice of potentially FMLA-qualifying leave; ODNI failed to inquire and thus interfered. | ODNI: No adequate notice of FMLA-qualifying condition/leave. | Court: Reversed summary judgment as to interference — fact question exists whether plaintiff gave sufficient notice to trigger employer’s duty to inquire; remanded. |
| FMLA retaliation | Hannah: Taking/requesting FMLA leave led to adverse hiring decision. | ODNI: Decision was based on attendance issues, not taking leave. | Court: Summary judgment for ODNI — plaintiff failed to show the proffered reason was pretextual. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Vannoy v. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, 827 F.3d 296 (employer need not ignore blatant or persistent misconduct even if tied to disability)
- Reyazuddin v. Montgomery County, 789 F.3d 407 (discusses reasonable-accommodation standard and employer discretion among effective accommodations)
- Wilson v. Dollar General Corp., 717 F.3d 337 (employer’s interactive process duty in accommodations context)
- Tyndall v. National Education Centers, Inc., 31 F.3d 209 (regular, reliable attendance is an essential job function)
- Dotson v. Pfizer, Inc., 558 F.3d 284 (notice rules for invoking FMLA protections; employer must inquire once on notice)