Solomon v. Vilsack
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28347
D.D.C.2012Background
- Solomon, a budget analyst for USDA since 1997, has a history of severe depression and agoraphobia requiring treatment.
- In early 2004 she requested accommodations (flexible schedule, cubicle changes) due to worsening symptoms and significant leave usage.
- USDA supervisors denied or limited accommodations, Solomon stopped reporting to work after April 23, 2004.
- Solomon and her psychiatrist eventually pursued FERS disability retirement, approved December 2004, with benefits starting January 2005.
- Solomon then filed suit in 2007 alleging Rehabilitation Act discrimination and Civil Rights Act retaliation; the district court previously ruled preclusion by disability benefits, a ruling vacated/remanded by the D.C. Circuit.
- The Secretary renews a motion for summary judgment contending the requested accommodations were unreasonable as a matter of law; the court grants the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are Solomon’s requested accommodations reasonable as a matter of law? | Solomon sought flexible, work-when-able scheduling. | Secretary argues the requests were not reasonable and would impair operations. | Yes; requests were unreasonable as a matter of law. |
| Did the denial of accommodations constitute adverse action in retaliation under Title VII? | Denial was retaliatory for protected EEO activity. | Accommodations were unreasonable, so denial was not an adverse action. | No; failure to provide unreasonable accommodations cannot be adverse action. |
| Can Solomon establish a causal link between protected activity and any denial of accommodations? | Temporal proximity supports causality. | Too much time passed and explanations are credible; no causal link. | No; no causally connected retaliation shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carr v. Reno, 23 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (reasonable accommodations must be well-defined and not open-ended)
- Scarborough v. Natsios, 190 F. Supp. 2d 5 (D. D.C. 2002) (open-ended work-from-home or flexible schedules may be unreasonable)
- Langon v. Dept. of Health and Human Services, 959 F.2d 1053 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (specific, well-defined accommodations may be reasonable)
- Breen v. DOT, 282 F.3d 839 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (case involving modified schedule; material facts for reasonableness)
- Clark County School Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268 (2001) (temporal proximity rule for retaliation causation)
- Rochon v. Gonzales, 438 F.3d 1211 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (retaliation standards post-White)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (standard for adverse action in retaliation context)