Joren v. Napolitano
633 F.3d 1144
7th Cir.2011Background
- Joren, a 63-year-old TSA security screener at Midway, sues alleging disability, age, and gender discrimination and retaliation; claims she was compelled to quit due to supervisor discrimination and hostile conditions.
- She has a chronic blood-clotting disorder causing leg pain, bleeding, and intermittent standing/walking limitations; she sought accommodations (modified schedule, light duty, transfer to Florida).
- Supervisor Arthur Bell allegedly rejected accommodations, treated seniority as irrelevant, imposed excessive training, consulted Joren's doctor without permission, and added notes to her file to derail a Florida transfer.
- In December 2003, Joren wore a temporary heart monitor; Bell allegedly refused temporary reassignment without a doctor’s quantified “safe distance” letter.
- January 2004, Joren resigned after a distressing meeting with TSA officials; she later claims loss of health-insurance paperwork.
- District court dismissed the claims; the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding ATSA preempts Rehabilitation Act claims for TSA screeners and no valid gender/age claims were stated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ATSA preempts Rehabilitation Act claims for TSA screeners | Joren contends Rehab Act claims were valid against TSA. | TSA screeners fall under ATSA preemption; Rehab Act barred. | ATSA preempts Rehabilitation Act claims for security screeners. |
| Whether Joren stated a gender discrimination claim | Joren alleges gender-based discrimination in actions by Bell. | Allegations do not show sex-based adverse action. | No plausible gender-discrimination claim. |
| Whether Joren stated an age discrimination claim | Joren asserts age-based differential treatment. | No evidence age influenced actions. | No plausible age-discrimination claim. |
| Whether Joren stated a disability discrimination claim under the Rehabilitation Act | Disability discrimination occurred in withholding accommodations. | ATSA preempts Rehab Act claims for TSA employees. | Rehabilitation Act claims barred by ATSA preemption. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074 (7th Cir. 2008) (claims must be plausible under Iqbal/Twombly standards)
- Castro v. Sec'y of Homeland Sec., 472 F.3d 1334 (11th Cir. 2006) (ATSA preempts Rehab Act for security screeners)
- Conyers v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 388 F.3d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (ATSA preempts Rehabilitation Act claims for TSA)
- Conyers v. Rossides, 558 F.3d 137 (2d Cir. 2009) (ATSA preemption of Rehab Act claims for TSA screeners)