Mack v. Georgetown University, Civil Action No. 2015-0793

Background

Mack was hired as an Executive Assistant in Georgetown University’s Department of Public Safety in Feb. 2014 and disclosed diabetes; an accommodation agreement addressing diabetes was executed in July 2014.
After complaining of mildew/mold, Mack reported respiratory symptoms later identified as rhinitis and requested reassignment; Georgetown investigated, cleaned, relocated tiles, and sought medical input to assess a new accommodation.
Georgetown placed Mack on temporary paid, then unpaid, leave while attempting to identify alternative workspaces and a vacant position; Mack limited communication between her physicians and the university, impeding the interactive process.
Chief of Police Jay Gruber repeatedly counseled Mack about attendance, tardiness, and job performance; Mack was suspended for three days in October 2014 for performance and misconduct issues.
Georgetown offered Mack a Recruiting Coordinator position in Jan. 2015 and reiterated an offer in March 2015 with a deadline; Mack failed to accept and her employment was terminated March 6, 2015. Mack sued under the ADA for discrimination and retaliation.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a reasonable accommodation (telework/working offsite) would have enabled Mack to perform essential job functions	Mack: her duties could be done offsite; Georgetown’s telework policy and other administrative employees teleworked	Georgetown: the job description and supervisor testimony show essential functions required on-site (phones, intake, in-person tasks); employer judgment is entitled to deference	Court: Georgetown shown essential on-site functions; no reasonable accommodation would have allowed off-site performance — summary judgment for Georgetown
Whether Georgetown failed to reassign Mack to a suitable vacant position	Mack: there were viable vacant/soon-to-be-vacant positions (HR Analyst, IDEAA Exec. Assistant) for which she was qualified	Georgetown: positions were filled or not known to be available during the interactive process; it acted in good faith and offered an alternative Recruiting Coordinator role	Court: Mack failed to show a truly vacant suitable position existed at the time; delay was not unreasonable given Georgetown’s efforts; summary judgment for Georgetown
Whether alleged acts constitute materially adverse actions tied to protected activity (retaliation)	Mack: supervisor was inflexible and harsh in response to accommodation requests, amounts to retaliation	Georgetown: complained-of conduct was not materially adverse and lacked causal connection to protected activity	Held: Mack waived new argumentation; alleged supervisory harshness not an adverse employment action — summary judgment for Georgetown

Key Cases Cited

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard and drawing inferences) (1986)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden on nonmovant) (1986)
Buie v. Berrien, 85 F. Supp. 3d 161 (D.D.C. 2015) (assessing whether accommodation permits performance of essential functions)
Aka v. Washington Hosp. Ctr., 156 F.3d 1284 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (reassignment as a reasonable accommodation standard)
Saunders v. Gallagher & Huguely Assocs., Inc., 741 F. Supp. 2d 245 (D.D.C. 2010) (deference to employer judgment on essential functions)
Elzeneiny v. District of Columbia, 125 F. Supp. 3d 18 (D.D.C. 2015) (factors for assessing reasonableness of delay in reassignment)
Alston v. WMATA, 571 F. Supp. 2d 77 (D.D.C. 2008) (plaintiff’s burden to show a suitable vacancy existed)
Mario v. P & C Food Markets, Inc., 313 F.3d 758 (2d Cir. 2002) (requirements for adequate objection to a magistrate judge’s report)