Reagan-Diaz v. Sessions
246 F. Supp. 3d 325
D.D.C.2017Background
- Sharon‑Lee Reagan‑Diaz, an FBI GS‑14 analyst on the Sentinel team, suffered a workplace injury in Sept. 2011 and was diagnosed with Complex Regional Pain Syndrome; she received FECA workers’ compensation through May 2013.
- In Jan.–Oct. 2012 she sought to return on a very limited schedule (2 hours/day) and to telecommute; FBI/WCU/DOL processes required either an AWA approved by DOL while on FECA or a Reasonable Accommodation after FECA ceased.
- DOL and WCU representatives communicated that a 2‑hour/day AWA was unsuitable and WCU required clearer medical info and a stable schedule; OEEOA declined to process a Reasonable Accommodation while she remained on FECA.
- The RAC approved a part‑time 20‑hour/week accommodation after FECA payments stopped and Reagan‑Diaz returned part‑time in May 2013 and later to full time by Jan. 2014.
- Reagan‑Diaz alleges (1) failure to accommodate under the Rehabilitation Act, (2) disability discrimination for refusal to permit her two‑hour return, and (3) retaliation for EEO activity by omission from the 2012 Director’s Award nominees and later the 2013 AG’s Award; the FBI moved to dismiss/for summary judgment.
- The Court granted summary judgment to the government, holding Reagan‑Diaz could not perform essential job functions on a 2‑hour/day schedule, the FBI’s non‑discriminatory reasons were credible, and the 2013 AG award claim was unexhausted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to accommodate under the Rehabilitation Act | Reagan‑Diaz sought a 2‑hour/day gradual return as a reasonable accommodation and a stepping stone to full duty | Two hours/day would not enable performance of essential functions (heavy workload, frequent in‑person/classified impromptu meetings); also procedures required AWA while on FECA and DOL would not approve 2‑hour AWA | Court: Granted summary judgment for defendant — plaintiff could not perform essential functions at time of requested accommodation, so accommodation claim fails |
| Disability discrimination (refusal to allow return) | Denial of two‑hour schedule was based on disability | FBI relied on non‑discriminatory reasons: inability to perform essential functions on 2 hrs/day; policy limits and DOL/WCU/FECA process barred such limited work while on compensation; safety/health concerns about intermittent "bad days" | Court: Granted summary judgment — plaintiff failed to show FBI’s reasons were pretextual |
| Retaliation re: 2012 Director’s Award | Exclusion from nominees was retaliation for prior EEO complaints | Selection discretionary; nominators explained plaintiff’s contributions were not among the top 15 contributors; group nominations limited to 15; many contributors not nominated | Court: Granted summary judgment — plaintiff did not show pretext or similarly situated comparators |
| Retaliation re: 2013 Attorney General’s Award | (Added later) Exclusion was retaliatory | Claim not administratively exhausted before filing suit | Court: Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction — failure to exhaust administrative remedies |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (evidentiary standard for summary judgment)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (retaliation adverse‑action standard)
- Doak v. Johnson, 798 F.3d 1096 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (insufficient accommodation where essential in‑office meeting presence required)
- Brady v. Office of Sergeant at Arms, 520 F.3d 490 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (focus on whether employer’s nondiscriminatory reason is pretext)
- Minter v. District of Columbia, 809 F.3d 66 (qualification assessed at time of employer decision)
- Solomon v. Vilsack, 763 F.3d 1 (elements of reasonable‑accommodation claim)