Kapche v. Holder
400 U.S. App. D.C. 201
| D.C. Cir. | 2012Background
- Kapche, a Type 1 insulin-dependent diabetic, applied for FBI special agent position in 2002 and received a conditional offer in 2004.
- FBI revoked the offer in 2005 for inability to manage diabetes to perform essential duties; dispute settled and conditional offer reinstated pending medical/background processing.
- During a 2006 background interview (PSI), Kapche withheld a gasoline-usage incident from Fort Bend County Sheriff's Office, later giving inconsistent explanations to FBI regarding the incident.
- On March 1, 2007, FBI again revoked Kapche's conditional offer for lack of candor; Kapche sued under the Rehabilitation Act § 501 alleging disability discrimination.
- A 2009 jury found in Kapche’s favor for $100,000 in compensatory damages; district court denied Holder’s Rule 50 motion and denied equitable relief.
- The court later denied front pay and reinstatement under Holder’s after-acquired evidence defense and denied back pay, leading to cross-appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kapche is disabled under the Act by diabetes | Kapche's diabetes substantially limits eating. | No substantial limitation; diabetes not substantially limiting eating for this individual. | Yes, Kapche disability supported; substantial limitation found in eating. |
| Whether the after-acquired evidence defense bars equitable relief | After-acquired evidence should not bar make-whole relief when liability is proven. | After-acquired evidence justifies denying front pay/instatement and limits back pay. | district court properly applied after-acquired evidence defense; denies front pay/instatement and back pay |
| Whether the FBI would have revoked Kapche's offer for lack of candor regardless of diabetes | Candor issue was not the basis for the initial discrimination claim. | Lack of candor would have led to rejection regardless of disability. | Yes; after-acquired evidence established that FBI would have revoked for lack of candor |
| Whether the district court properly admitted and used after-acquired evidence at the remedy stage | Evidence should not be used to limit relief. | Proper to use evidence to shape equitable relief. | Yes; remedies appropriately limited by after-acquired evidence |
| Whether back pay was correctly calculated | Back pay should reflect lost wages from unlawful discharge. | Back pay calculated against hypothetical FBI earnings with appropriate offsets. | District court did not abuse discretion; back pay denied based on expert calculations |
Key Cases Cited
- Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1999) (individualized inquiry; mitigating measures considered)
- Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624 (U.S. 1998) (disability scope not requiring utter incapacitation)
- Lawson v. CSX Transp., Inc., 245 F.3d 916 (7th Cir. 2001) (demands of diabetes treatment can substantially limit eating)
- Branham v. Snow, 392 F.3d 896 (7th Cir. 2004) (diabetes can substantially limit dietary control)
- Desmond v. Mukasey, 530 F.3d 944 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (ADA standards applied to Rehabilitation Act claims)
- Frazier Indus. Co. v. NLRB, 213 F.3d 750 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (requirements for after-acquired evidence defense)
- McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publ'g Co., 513 U.S. 352 (U.S. 1995) (after-acquired evidence limits equitable relief)