Michael Banim v. State of Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, 689 F. App'x 633

Michael Banim, a Department of Business and Professional Regulation employee, sued his former employer under the Rehabilitation Act and Florida Civil Rights Act alleging failure to accommodate, disparate treatment, and retaliation. Age claim was dismissed by consent.
Banim requested accommodation for a physical impairment; the Department permitted him to telework from home and required completion of daily activity reports (DARs).
The Department enforced DARs and related telework policies that it had previously established for similarly situated employees.
Banim never attempted to submit the DARs and received warnings that failure to comply could lead to termination.
The Department placed Banim on notice that relocation and DAR compliance were required as part of agency restructuring/cost-saving measures; Banim was later terminated for insubordination for failing to comply.
The district court granted summary judgment for the Department on accommodation, disparate-treatment, and retaliation claims; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Reasonable accommodation — did employer unreasonably condition accommodation by requiring DARs?	Banim: DAR requirement made accommodation unreasonable and burdensome.	Dept.: Telework plus DARs was a reasonable accommodation applied uniformly; DARs posed no undue hardship and Banim never tried to comply.	Affirmed — accommodation was reasonable; no refusal to accommodate.
Disparate treatment / pretext — were DARs a pretext for disability discrimination?	Banim: DAR enforcement was discriminatory and a pretext for unequal treatment.	Dept.: DARs and policies predated Banim’s request; differences were minor and based on job duties; legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons (restructuring/cost-savings).	Affirmed — plaintiff failed to show employer’s reasons were pretextual.
Retaliation — was termination retaliatory for filing a charge?	Banim: Termination was in retaliation for filing a discrimination charge.	Dept.: Termination was for insubordination/failure to follow orders (no DARs submitted) — a legitimate non-retaliatory reason.	Affirmed — record supports termination for insubordination; plaintiff failed to show pretext or causal link.
Summary judgment standard / review	N/A	N/A	Affirmed — de novo review; no genuine issue of material fact.

Cash v. Smith, 231 F.3d 1301 (11th Cir. 2000) (Rehabilitation Act claims governed by same standards as ADA)
Stewart v. Happy Herman’s Cheshire Bridge, Inc., 117 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir. 1997) (employee entitled to reasonable, not preferred, accommodation; undue hardship defense)
Lucas v. W.W. Grainger, Inc., 257 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir. 2001) (reasonable accommodation defined by ability to perform essential job functions; framework for retaliation prima facie)
Rojas v. Florida, 285 F.3d 1339 (11th Cir. 2002) (pretext inquiry—whether employer’s reasons are a coverup)
Silvera v. Orange Cnty. Sch. Bd., 244 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2001) (pretext: whether proffered legitimate reasons actually motivated conduct)
Combs v. Plantation Patterns, Meadowcraft, Inc., 106 F.3d 1519 (11th Cir. 1997) (weaknesses/inconsistencies in employer’s reasons may show pretext)
Stutts v. Freeman, 694 F.2d 666 (11th Cir. 1983) (apply McDonnell Douglas framework to Rehabilitation Act claims)
Goforth v. Owens, 766 F.2d 1533 (11th Cir. 1985) (use of implicit district court findings when supported by record)
Weeks v. Harden Mfg. Corp., 291 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir. 2002) (summary judgment review is de novo)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment legal standard)
Wilson v. B/E Aerospace, Inc., 376 F.3d 1079 (11th Cir. 2004) (McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting explained)
EEOC v. Total Sys. Servs., 221 F.3d 1171 (11th Cir. 2000) (affirming summary judgment when plaintiff fails to show pretext)