648 F. App'x 729
9th Cir.2016Background
- ATF hired Peter Bukiri in 2010 in Washington, D.C.; he later requested and received a hardship transfer to California to care for his wife, who had disabilities predating his employment.
- In August 2014 ATF informed Bukiri he would be transferred back to D.C. for staffing needs; his second hardship transfer request to remain in California was denied under ATF’s policy excluding preexisting hardships.
- Bukiri exhausted agency internal proceedings challenging the transfer (ongoing) and sought a preliminary injunction in district court under the Rehabilitation Act for associational disability discrimination (claiming discrimination based on his wife’s disability).
- The district court denied the preliminary injunction, finding Bukiri unlikely to succeed on the merits.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed the denial for abuse of discretion and affirmed, concluding Bukiri’s evidence did not show the transfer was motivated by his wife’s disability and that the denial of a hardship accommodation does not prove discriminatory motive for the transfer itself.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bukiri may prevail on an associational-discrimination claim under the Rehabilitation Act | Bukiri: ATF transferred him because of his wife’s preexisting disability; denial of hardship request shows discriminatory motive | ATF: Transfer was driven by legitimate agency staffing needs; hardship policy excludes preexisting conditions and denial of accommodation is not evidence of discriminatory motive for transfer | Court: Bukiri failed to show likelihood of success; evidence supports staffing-need motive, not discrimination |
| Whether denial of a hardship accommodation equals evidence of discriminatory motive for adverse action | Bukiri: Denial based on preexisting nature of wife’s disability indicates discrimination | ATF: Policy exclusion explains denial; accommodation decision is separate from transfer rationale | Court: Rejected Bukiri’s inference; denial of hardship does not establish discriminatory motive for transfer |
| Causation standard for associational-discrimination claims under ADA/Rehabilitation Act | Bukiri: (implicitly) motivating-factor inference would apply | ATF: (implicitly) requires stronger proof linking disability to adverse action | Court: Notes circuit split and post-Gross/Nassar retreat from motivating-factor standard, but found outcome same under any plausible standard—Bukiri cannot prevail |
| Appropriate remedy at preliminary-injunction stage | Bukiri: Injunction required to prevent transfer enforcement | ATF: Injunction not warranted absent likelihood of success on merits | Court: Preliminary injunction properly denied for lack of likely success on the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (preliminary injunction standard)
- DISH Network Corp. v. F.C.C., 653 F.3d 771 (9th Cir.) (abuse-of-discretion review of injunction denials)
- Johnston v. Horne, 875 F.2d 1415 (9th Cir.) (Rehabilitation Act as remedy for federal-employee disability discrimination)
- Head v. Glacier Northwest, Inc., 413 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir.) (prior Ninth Circuit adoption of motivating-factor language in ADA cases)
- Gross v. FBL Financial Servs., 557 U.S. 167 (retreat from motivating-factor causation in some discrimination contexts)
- Univ. of Tex. Southwestern Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (retreat from motivating-factor causation in retaliation/discrimination contexts)