Saman Khoury v. Secretary United States Army
677 F. App'x 735
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Khoury, an Army employee, had prior motor-vehicle injuries and entered a negotiated settlement agreement (NSA) requiring management—subject to higher approval—to provide first-class air for work trips when appropriate.
- For a March–April 2006 assignment to Illinois, the Army approved coach air travel; Khoury submitted medical documentation requesting ability to walk after ~1 hour of sitting.
- EEO intervened and the Army approved train travel with a family-bedroom sleeper-car upgrade instead of first-class air; Khoury traveled by train, then sought first-class air for his return after an ER visit in Illinois and purchased a first-class ticket without Army permission.
- Khoury sued in 2012 under the Rehabilitation Act alleging failure to reasonably accommodate, discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment (latter not pursued in district court).
- The District Court granted summary judgment for the Army; Khoury appealed only the reasonable-accommodation claim, arguing exhaustion, disability status, and inadequacy of the train accommodation.
- The Third Circuit affirmed, holding the Army provided a reasonable accommodation (train sleeper) and Khoury failed to show it was ineffective or that the Army refused the interactive process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Army failed to provide a reasonable accommodation under the Rehabilitation Act | Khoury: first-class air was necessary; train sleeper was inadequate to allow required movement and therefore an adverse employment decision | Army: provided reasonable accommodation (train with sleeper upgrade); employer may choose any effective accommodation | Held for Army: train sleeper was a reasonable accommodation; plaintiff did not show it ineffective |
| Whether employer must justify refusal of plaintiff's preferred accommodation by showing undue hardship | Khoury: Army must prove undue burden to deny first-class air | Army: need only provide some reasonable accommodation; burden to show undue hardship arises only if plaintiff makes prima facie case | Held: No need for Army to prove undue burden because plaintiff failed to establish lack of any reasonable accommodation |
| Whether the interactive process failed | Khoury: (implied) Army did not meet obligations in search for accommodation | Army: engaged with EEO and provided alternative accommodation | Held: Interactive process occurred; plaintiff conceded facts do not support failure-to-engage claim |
| Whether withholding first-class travel constituted an "adverse employment decision" under prima facie Rehabilitation Act test | Khoury: denial of preferred travel is an adverse decision | Army: provision of alternative travel means no adverse decision based on disability | Held: Denial of chosen accommodation, when effective alternative provided, did not constitute adverse employment decision |
Key Cases Cited
- Mengine v. Runyon, 114 F.3d 415 (3d Cir. 1997) (summary judgment standard and interactive process duties under accommodation law)
- D.E. v. Cent. Dauphin Sch. Dist., 765 F.3d 260 (3d Cir. 2014) (standard for viewing facts on summary judgment)
- Shiring v. Runyon, 90 F.3d 827 (3d Cir. 1996) (Rehabilitation Act prohibits employment discrimination against disabled persons)
- Williams v. Phila. Hous. Auth. Police Dep’t, 380 F.3d 751 (3d Cir. 2004) (framework for prima facie disability discrimination claims parallels ADA standards)
- Antol v. Perry, 82 F.3d 1291 (3d Cir. 1996) (substantive standards under ADA and Rehabilitation Act are same)
- Aka v. Washington Hosp. Ctr., 156 F.3d 1284 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (employer need not provide employee's preferred accommodation; any effective accommodation suffices)