Regina Bryant v. Denis McDonough, 72 F.4th 149

Regina Bryant, an African American federal employee with dyslexia, worked as a sterile processing technician at the VA hospital in Cleveland.
She filed a pro se 97‑page amended complaint alleging disability discrimination, retaliation, hostile work environment, institutionalized racism, privacy violations, and discriminatory/retaliatory non‑selection for a painter position.
The district court denied Bryant’s request for appointed counsel, dismissed multiple claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (including a purported coworker claim), and held Bryant failed to exhaust certain harassment incidents in her EEO charge.
The court concluded the VA’s assignment of co‑worker Dionna Arthur to Bryant’s shift, plus isolated rude remarks and proximity incidents, did not make a pervasively hostile work environment and dismissed that claim.
After discovery, the VA moved for summary judgment on Bryant’s painter‑selection claim; the VA showed the selected male candidate was disabled and better qualified, and the district court found Bryant offered no evidence of pretext and granted summary judgment.
On appeal Bryant challenged only denial of counsel and the hostile‑work‑environment dismissal; the Sixth Circuit found other issues forfeited and affirmed the district court and denied appointment of counsel on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether assignment of Arthur to Bryant’s shift (and related incidents) created a hostile work environment under the Rehabilitation Act	Assignment plus prior harassment, rude comments, sitting near Bryant, and speculation about tampering made the environment pervasively hostile	Those incidents were isolated, not severe or pervasive, and Bryant failed to exhaust other discrete incidents administratively	Dismissal affirmed: allegations insufficient as a matter of law to show a severe or pervasive hostile work environment
Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying appointment of counsel	Bryant asserted her dyslexia and the complexity of opposing government lawyers required counsel	VA and district court said issues were not complex and Bryant competently litigated the case (met deadlines, filed coherent briefs, marshaled evidence)	Denial affirmed: no exceptional circumstances; no abuse of discretion
Whether appellate review extends to claims Bryant did not raise on appeal	Bryant discussed broader harms but focused briefing on two issues	The Secretary argued unraised claims were forfeited	Court held claims not argued on appeal are forfeited and declined to address new post‑judgment medical claims

Harris v. Forklift Sys., 510 U.S. 17 (1993) (standard for severity/pervasiveness in hostile‑work‑environment claims)
Lavado v. Keohane, 992 F.2d 601 (6th Cir. 1993) (standards for appointing counsel in civil cases)
Bard v. Brown County, 970 F.3d 738 (6th Cir. 2020) (forfeiture of issues not raised on appeal)
Bickerstaff v. Lucarelli, 830 F.3d 388 (6th Cir. 2016) (Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal standard)
Jones v. Potter, 488 F.3d 397 (6th Cir. 2007) (Rehabilitation Act applies to federal employees)
Plautz v. Potter, [citation="156 F. App'x 812"] (6th Cir. 2005) (elements of hostile‑work‑environment claim under the Rehabilitation Act)
Perez v. Oakland County, 466 F.3d 416 (6th Cir. 2006) (declining to consider arguments or evidence raised for the first time on appeal)