Morris v. Johnson
994 F. Supp. 2d 38
D.D.C.2013Background
- Connie K. Morris worked for EPA Federal Register Staff (2003–2007) and reported severe allergic reactions she attributed to yeast/mold exposures at EPA worksites.
- EPA tested air quality, provided air purifiers/filters, temporarily allowed work-from-home and moved her between several EPA sites (EPA East, Crystal Station, Potomac Yards) seeking a workable location.
- EPA’s National Reasonable Accommodation Coordinator found Morris disabled (limiting breathing and walking) and authorized accommodation; EPA nonetheless assigned her to isolated "clean" facilities and later moved her back to regular offices after she failed to document reactions to a particular site.
- Morris was charged with 412 hours AWOL for Aug–Dec 2006, reported to work Jan 2, 2007 but left after two hours, and was terminated March 10, 2007; she filed this Rehabilitation Act suit alleging failure to accommodate and retaliation.
- The court found no genuine dispute of material fact warranting trial and considered whether Morris was disabled/qualified, whether her requested accommodation (permanent telework) was reasonable, and whether termination was retaliatory.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Morris is a "disabled" person under the Rehabilitation Act | Morris: medical evidence (including Agency coordinator’s determination and physicians’ reports) shows breathing/walking substantially limited | EPA: symptoms mitigated by meds/masks; reactions limited to workplace locations and thus not a substantial, long-term limitation | Court: disputed — Agency determination creates a material fact issue; EPA’s challenge to disability fails |
| Whether Morris was a "qualified" individual—could perform essential functions with accommodation | Morris: could perform all job duties remotely from home | EPA: position is workstation-oriented; essential duties require in-office teamwork, training, and vendor/contractor interaction; telework would eliminate essential functions and impose undue burden | Court: Morris could not perform essential functions with requested telework; required accommodation unreasonable; EPA entitled to judgment on failure-to-accommodate claim |
| Whether EPA engaged in the required interactive process in good faith | Morris: EPA failed to pursue telework or other government facilities and thus did not act in good faith | EPA: tested sites, purchased equipment, consulted with Morris, and explored alternatives; interactive process occurred | Court: EPA engaged in good-faith interactive process; any breakdown attributable to Morris’s insistence on telework |
| Whether Morris established retaliation tied to protected activity | Morris: filing EEOC complaint and accommodation requests were protected; adverse acts included reassignment, increased documentation requests, and termination | EPA: adverse employment action was termination for AWOL; temporal gap and lack of causal link; documentation requests not materially adverse | Court: Morris did not show causal connection or other adverse actions sufficient for retaliation claim; EPA’s non-retaliatory reason (AWOL) stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Adams v. Rice, 531 F.3d 936 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (definition of "disabled" under Rehabilitation Act)
- Toyota Motor Mfg. Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (U.S. 2002) (demanding standard for "substantially limits")
- Haynes v. Williams, 392 F.3d 478 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (limitations confined to a single workplace do not establish disability)
- Woodruff v. Peters, 482 F.3d 521 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (distinguishing telework requests from extensions of de facto workplace accommodations)
- Carr v. Reno, 23 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (government employee’s ability to appear for work is often an essential job function)