Solomon v. Vilsack
393 U.S. App. D.C. 327
D.C. Cir.2010Background
- Solomon worked as a budget analyst for the USDA since 1997 and has a history of depression and agoraphobia.
- In 2003–2004 her mental health deteriorated, with increased leave and irregular attendance.
- She previously received informal accommodations (privacy screen, flexible hours) approved by supervisors Booth and later restricted by Lawrence.
- Solomon sought formal accommodations and medical documentation in 2004; she received mixed responses and ongoing leave allowances.
- On August 30, 2004 she applied for FERS disability retirement; the form did not ask about reasonable accommodations, only whether accommodations were granted.
- OPM approved disability benefits in December 2004, retroactive to January 2005, and Solomon began receiving benefits; she stopped working thereafter and claimed ongoing disability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FERS disability benefits bar Rehabilitation Act claims. | Solomon argues no per se bar exists. | Secretary argues potential inherent conflict or estoppel-based bar. | Not barred per se; require reconciliation of statements. |
| Whether the claims can be reconciled with Cleveland v. Policy Management | Solomon can show consistency between FERS statements and accommodation claim. | Solomon's statements inconsistent with ability to work with accommodations. | A reasonable jury could find consistency; not foreclosed. |
| Whether statements in FERS application defeat accommodation claim | Statements do not expressly negate ability to work with accommodation. | Statements imply inability to work without accommodations. | Not dispositive; reconciliation possible. |
| Whether retaliation claims are foreclosed by the FERS/disability claims | Retaliation claims survive with proper showing independent of FERS issue. | If accommodation not possible, retaliation claim moot. | Remand to address merits of accommodation and retaliation claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cleveland v. Policy Management Sys. Corp., 526 U.S. 795 (1999) (SSDI-ADA conflict did not create automatic bar; require reconciliation of statements)
- Lamberson v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, 80 MSPR 648 (1999) (MSPB: disability-benefit eligibility not dispositive for discrimination claims)
- Swanks v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 116 F.3d 582 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (discrimination remedies may be pursued with disability-benefits considerations)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (adverse-action standard and causation considerations in retaliation context)