80 F. Supp. 3d 79
D.D.C.2015Background
- Redmon is an African-American woman over 40 employed as an Intelligence Research Specialist with the U.S. Capitol Police.
- She suffers from sarcoidosis causing leg pain, swelling, and flare-ups; she seeks intermittent telework during flare-ups.
- Her requests to telework were denied (notably in Sept. 2012 and Jan. 2013).
- She filed complaints alleging race, sex, and age discrimination, plus disability discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act/ADA and related statutes via the Congressional Accountability Act.
- She initially pursued a complaint with the Office of Compliance (OOC) following the Sept. 2012 denial and later filed this federal action on Aug. 30, 2013.
- During the case, a doctor’s letter (Dec. 5, 2012) supported a second telework request, and Redmon later obtained a telework arrangement by 2014; the court focuses on the Jan. 2013 denial and its consequences for the claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether January 2013 denial precludes Redmon’s claims. | Redmon argues the Jan. 2013 denial differs from Sept. 2012, so preclusion should not bar. | Capitol Police argues the issues were litigated in OOC and the Jan. 2013 denial is preclusive. | Court converts to summary judgment to resolve preclusion; not finally resolved here. |
| Whether denial of telework is an adverse employment action. | Denial plus use of leave constitutes adverse action. | Denial alone is not an adverse action; leave linkage is insufficient. | Telework denial alone is not an adverse action; counts II–VI dismissed. |
| Whether Redmon pleaded a cognizable disability for reasonable accommodation. | Sarcoidosis impairs major life activities; she seeks telework as accommodation. | ADA requires a disability; the medical evidence contradicts substantial limitation. | Plaintiff did not plead a disability with substantial limitation; Count I dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hollabaugh v. Office of the Architect of the Capitol, 847 F. Supp. 2d 57 (D.D.C. 2012) (ADA claims require adverse action and disability link)
- Twombly v. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must be plausible, not merely speculative)
- Iqbal v. Ashcroft, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standard requires plausible claims)
- Taylor v. Small, 350 F.3d 1286 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (defines adverse employment action for Title VII actions)
- Zeigler v. Potter, 510 F. Supp. 2d 9 (D.D.C. 2007) (ADA/ disability discrimination standards and substantial limitation analysis)