920 F. Supp. 2d 127
D.D.C.2013Background
- Joseph Lee, a DC corrections officer, was terminated in 2008 for alleged neglect of duty amid his Type II diabetes requiring regular meals.
- Lee alleged two ADA claims: failure to accommodate his diabetes with regular lunch breaks and disability-based intentional discrimination.
- The District of Columbia moved for summary judgment on both claims; the court denied the motion, leaving genuine issues for trial.
- Evidence shows Lee slept on duty on multiple dates (March 12, 13, and 27, 2008) per supervisors, though Lee disputes these sleep claims.
- Supervisor Perry prepared a report leading to Lee’s termination; supervisor Graham disputed some accounts and testimony is conflicting.
- Lee testified that he requested a lunch break due to diabetes, while Graham acknowledged but did not pursue accommodations; notice and dialogue about accommodations are disputed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to accommodate under the ADA | Lee was disabled and District knew; missed meals harmed his condition. | Lee not presently disabled; no effective notice of needed accommodation. | Denial of summary judgment; triable as to disability status and notice. |
| Intentional discrimination under the ADA | Lee was fired due to diabetes rather than neglect. | Reason for firing was legitimate and not pretextual. | Denial of summary judgment on pretext; triable as to discriminatory motive. |
| Notice and knowledge of disability and need for accommodation | District had actual or constructive notice via Lee’s disclosures and supervisor conversations. | No clear or formal notice of disability or accommodation request. | Denial of summary judgment; triable as to what constitutes notice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Aka v. Wash. Hosp. Ctr., 156 F.3d 1284 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (failure-to-accommodate analyzed outside McDonnell Douglas framework)
- Swanks v. WMATA, 179 F.3d 929 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (ADA disparate treatment framework for disability claims)
- Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (S. Ct. 1999) (strict, present, not hypothetical, standard for disability)
- Burdine v. Texas Dept. of Community Affairs, 450 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1981) (three-step McDonnell Douglas framework for discrimination cases)
- St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (U.S. 1993) (pretext framework and ultimate burden on plaintiff)
- Desmond v. Mukasey, 530 F.3d 944 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (summary judgment in discrimination cases remains improper when credibility is at issue)