903 F. Supp. 2d 71
D.D.C.2012Background
- McNair is a lupus patient and hearing officer for the DCRA who sought ADA accommodations during recovery from back surgery.
- She was diagnosed with degenerative disc disease in 2005 and underwent multiple back surgeries, with extended medical leave through May 11, 2006.
- After leave, there is a dispute over work-from-home accommodations: supervisor purportedly allowed telework, then informal permission was revoked requiring written requests.
- McNair submitted a formal accommodation request on July 14, 2006; August 3, 2006 DCRA denied telework and labeled her AWOL.
- McNair faced a January 2007 notice of proposed removal (which she challenged) and ultimately resigned February 2009; she filed this ADA suit on February 14, 2012 alleging two claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retaliation claim involves a materially adverse action? | McNair alleges the Jan. 2007 notice letter constitutes retaliation. | District argues the letter did not amount to an adverse action. | Count II granted for District; no adverse action established. |
| Whether McNair's failure-to-accommodate claim is viable at pleadings stage | Plaintiff asserts she needed accommodations and District failed. | Record is limited; at pleadings stage, dismissal is premature. | Count I not resolved on pleadings; summary judgment deferred pending discovery. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (Sup. Ct. 2006) (establishes standard for adverse actions in retaliation claims)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (Sup. Ct. 1973) (burden-shifting framework for retaliation claims)
- Smith v. District of Columbia, 430 F.3d 450 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (retaliation framework in this circuit)
- Mahoney v. Donovan, 824 F. Supp. 2d 49 (D.D.C. 2011) (email warning of potential discipline not adverse action)
- Bailey v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth., 810 F. Supp. 2d 295 (D.D.C. 2011) (severance offer not adverse action when unsatisfactory performance)
- Forkkio v. Powell, 306 F.3d 1127 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (not every action making employee unhappy is actionable)
- Broderick v. Donaldson, 437 F.3d 1226 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (reiterates limits on what constitutes adverse action)
- Mungin v. Katten Muchin & Zavis, 116 F.3d 1549 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (intermediate decisions lacking immediate effect not adverse action)