McCoy v. Department of Army
789 F. Supp. 2d 1221
E.D. Cal.2011Background
- McCoy, a former Army Corps administrative assistant, alleges disability-based termination under the Rehabilitation Act (dyslexia).
- Hired May 2005 via Workforce Recruitment Program; accommodations included proofreading by supervisor.
- In Aug. 2006, Brown supervised McCoy; Brown allegedly made hostile/disparaging remarks about McCoy's disability.
- McCoy allegedly made false statements about credit for Dwyer’s work and about proofreading duties; termination notice issued Sept. 7, 2006, effective Sept. 15, 2006.
- McCoy filed an EEO complaint Oct. 17, 2006; ALJ decision in Feb. 2009; Final Agency Decision issued Apr. 2009; notice mailed Apr. 23, 2009.
- McCoy filed this district court action July 17, 2007; Defendants moved for summary judgment on multiple grounds, including timeliness and remedies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of the Rehabilitation Act claim | Equitable tolling due to counsel's statements on service | 90-day limit; not tolled by email receipt | Equitable tolling applied between April 16 and April 23, 2009; timely filed under tolling |
| Prima facie case of disparate treatment | Evidence of bias against disabled; Cross declarations show discriminatory remarks | Insufficient similarly situated comparators; reasons are legitimate | Placing facts raised a genuine dispute on discrimination pretext; prima facie established and pretext shown |
| Pretext in termination reasons | Three stated reasons were pretext; evidence of bias and accommodation acceptance | Termination for stated reasons; same-actor inference possible | Evidence sufficient to raise triable issue on pretext; not appropriate for summary judgment |
| Retaliation claim and damages | Termination linked to protected activity about disability discrimination | Same-actor inference and lack of direct knowledge | Plaintiff raised genuine issues on causation; but damages analysis later limited by statute; multi-faceted ruling |
| Damages availability for retaliation | Statutory entitlement to compensatory damages under §1981a | Ninth Circuit bars compensatory damages for ADA/ Rehabilitation Act retaliation claims | Compensatory damages for retaliation not available; remedies limited |
Key Cases Cited
- Irwin v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89 (U.S. 1990) (equitable tolling of the 90-day filing period permitted)
- Santa Maria v. Pacific Bell, 202 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2000) (equitable tolling where notice was inadequate)
- Rasberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2006) (extraordinary circumstances; pro se deficiency plus counsel statements)
- Chuang v. Univ. of Cal., Davis, 225 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2000) (prima facie and pretext framework; evidence weighing on summary judgment)
- Bradley v. Harcourt, Brace & Co., 104 F.3d 267 (9th Cir. 1996) (same-actor inference can be rebutted by evidence of bias)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., 530 U.S. 133 (U.S. 2000) (credibility not required at summary judgment stage for employer's reasons)
- Aragon v. Republic Silver State Disposal, 292 F.3d 654 (9th Cir. 2002) (circumstances may create inference of discrimination)
- Ferguson v. City of Phoenix, 157 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 1998) (co-extensiveness of remedies under ADA/Rehabilitation Act with Title VI)
- Alvarado v. Cajun Operating Co., 588 F.3d 1261 (9th Cir. 2009) (compensatory and punitive damages not available for ADA retaliation)
- Lutz v. Glendale Union High Sch. Dist. No. 205, 403 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2005) (back pay as equitable remedy; not speculative)
- Traxler v. Multnomah County, 596 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2010) (back/front pay determinations may be decided with jury guidance)