Koch v. Schapiro, 759 F. Supp. 2d 67

Koch sued the SEC in DC federal court (Civil Action No. 1:02-1492) alleging discrimination, retaliation, and failure to accommodate under CRA, ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and ADEA; the suit was filed after years of employment beginning in 1991 as a financial analyst in SEC’s ODR Branch 16, with duties including legal review of filings.
He claimed a heavier workload, due to his legal duties and heart condition, and sought accommodation (lighter workload, flexible schedule) beginning in 1994; his accommodation requests were denied, and he alleged retaliation after engaging in EEO activity.
Koch sought conversion to GS-13 staff attorney with conditions (probation and MSPB rights waiver) and alleged discriminatory treatment in attempts to convert and in promotions.
Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of administrative exhaustion and, in the alternative, for summary judgment on the merits; the court held administrative exhaustion was required for the unexhausted claims and granted summary judgment on the remaining four substantive claims.
The court’s analysis applied Iqbal/Twombly plausibility standard, discussed the burden-shifting framework (McDonnell Douglas) for discrimination and retaliation, and addressed the Rehabilitation Act’s interactive-process requirements and the employer’s duty to accommodate.
The court ultimately granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, and entered judgment in favor of the SEC.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Exhaustion of administrative remedies for claims	Koch exhausted by EEOC process; unexhausted claims should be allowed	Unexhausted claims not reasonably related to EEOC charge	Claims dismissed for lack of exhaustion
Heavier workload as adverse action	Heavier workload constitutes adverse discrimination and retaliation	No adverse employment action; workload increase is subjective and not a material change	Summary judgment for Defendant on heavier-workload claim
Failure to accommodate disability (Rehabilitation Act)	Defendant failed to engage in good faith interactive process	Defendant engaged in good-faith process; Plaintiff failed to provide required information	Summary judgment for Defendant; no Rehabilitation Act violation
Denial of promotion/conversion to GS-13 (retaliation/discrimination)	Denied due to protected status and EEO activity or retaliation	Offer of GS-12 with MSPB/ probation, same restrictions as others; no discriminatory motive	Summary judgment for Defendant; no prima facie case of discrimination/retaliation
Denial of promotion to GS-13 Financial Analyst (eligibility/notice)	Invalid posting criterion and poor notice denied opportunity	Posting reposted; no evidence Koch was singled out; applicant not notified via normal channels	Summary judgment for Defendant

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading must state a plausible claim)
Twombly v. Bell Atlantic Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading standard; plausibility required)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (prima facie case and burden-shifting framework)
Brown v. Brody, 199 F.3d 446 (D.C.Cir.1999) (prima facie elements of discrimination in DC Cir.)
Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (U.S. 2006) (retaliation standard; material adversity)
Stewart v. Evans, 275 F.3d 1126 (D.C.Cir.2002) (office changes in duties and adverse action standard)
Mungin v. Katten Muchin & Zavis, 116 F.3d 1549 (D.C.Cir.1997) (no per se discretion; task changes not necessarily adverse)
Dage v. Johnson, 537 F. Supp. 2d 43 (D.D.C.2008) (administrative processes not adverse action absent harm)