821 F. Supp. 2d 155
D.D.C.2011Background
- Howard, a former Financial Manager for the DC OCFO, was injured in April 2004 and initially left work on leave due to shoulder and knee injuries.
- After injury, he sought accommodations and disability retirement; retirement benefits were denied in November 2005, while he remained on leave without pay.
- December 2004 correspondence suggested his position was abandoned for lack of medical documentation, with Howard indicating willingness to return if accommodated; there is no clear action by the Agency in response.
- In January 2006, Dr. Higgins indicated Howard could return to work 20 hours per week with sedentary limitations and no repetitive motion; the record shows dispute over interpretation of these constraints.
- March 13, 2006, Gandhi terminated Howard; Howard appealed and filed a charge of discrimination, leading to this ADA/Rehabilitation Act action focused on accommodations and termination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether April 2004–December 2005 accommodation was reasonable | Howard was entitled to a reasonable accommodation within his current duties. | Accommodation was provided via LWOP; no further accommodation possible. | Summary judgment for defendant granted for this period. |
| Whether January 2006 accommodation request shows Howard as 'otherwise qualified' | Howard could return with a reasonable accommodation despite prior retirement denial. | Howard remained unable to work or was not meaningfully qualified to return with accommodation. | Genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment. |
| Whether disability retirement denial precludes ADA/Rehabilitation Act claims | Retirement denial does not preclude claims post-denial when seeking accommodation. | CSRS/RE retirement status can foreclose related discrimination claims. | Not precluded; triable issues remain regarding recoverability and current work ability. |
| Whether certain job functions (computer work, offsite travel) are essential | Plaintiff could perform computer work and possibly travel with limitations. | Certain functions may be essential and not subject to accommodation. | Issues of computer-use scope and offsite travel as essential functions remain triable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cleveland v. Policy Mgmt. Sys. Corp., 526 U.S. 795 (1999) (SSA-benefits application not controlling ADA claims when not awarded)
- Solomon v. Vilsack, 628 F.3d 555 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (receipt of disability benefits does not create a presumption against discrimination claims)
- Aka v. Washington Hosp. Ctr., 156 F.3d 1284 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (reassignment considered only when accommodation within current position would pose undue hardship)
- Cravens v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City, 214 F.3d 1011 (8th Cir. 2000) (repetitive-motion restriction analysis in context of disability)
- Holmes-Martin v. Leavitt, 569 F. Supp. 2d 184 (D.D.C. 2008) (preclusion of disability-discrimination claims when CSRS benefits obtained; circuit split addressed)