Sparrow v. District of Columbia Office of Human Rights
74 A.3d 698
D.C.2013Background
- Sparrow, Director of Restaurant/Catering at Sea Catch, notified employer in Feb 2009 of degenerative hip disease and requested 10–15 hour weekly reduction and less time on his feet pending surgery.
- Employer offered a demotion: reduced hours (to ~20/wk), reduced responsibilities (banquet booking), and a $13,000 pay cut; Sparrow accepted and was later terminated for "poor performance."
- Sparrow filed an OHR complaint alleging failure to provide a reasonable accommodation and retaliatory termination; OHR investigated without a hearing and found no probable cause; reconsideration affirmed; Superior Court affirmed OHR.
- Record included coworker affidavits supporting Sparrow, employer affidavits documenting performance problems, emails documenting service/operational issues, and financial data showing decreased revenues.
- OHR concluded employer engaged in the interactive process, that the demotion was a reasonable accommodation, and that Sparrow failed to rebut the employer’s poor-performance reason for termination.
- Court of Appeals found OHR ignored material evidence, misapplied the probable-cause standard, and remanded to OHR for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did employer engage in the ADA-style interactive process? | Sparrow: employer offered a take-it-or-leave-it demotion and did not meaningfully discuss alternatives. | R.B. Properties: witnesses say they worked with Sparrow and granted his requested schedule/responsibilities change. | Court: OHR ignored record evidence showing lack of meaningful dialogue; finding unsupported; remand. |
| Was the demotion a "reasonable accommodation" or an adverse action? | Sparrow: demotion + pay cut punished visible limp and was adverse, not an accommodation. | R.B. Properties: reduced hours/responsibilities matched Sparrow’s request and thus were reasonable. | Court: reduction falls on a spectrum; OHR misapplied probable-cause standard by not fully considering Sparrow’s evidence; remand. |
| Did Sparrow rebut employer’s stated nondiscriminatory reason (poor performance) for termination? | Sparrow: coworker affidavits and prior emails show he was effective and raised problems, creating doubt about employer’s belief in poor performance. | R.B. Properties: submitted affidavits, emails, recap of catering issues, and financial data documenting poor performance. | Court: OHR imposed too heavy a burden on Sparrow at investigatory stage; Sparrow offered probative evidence of pretext; remand. |
| Was OHR’s no-probable-cause finding supported by substantial evidence? | Sparrow: OHR ignored material record evidence and misapplied law on interactive process and burden. | R.B. Properties: OHR relied on its affidavits and documentary evidence showing accommodation and legitimate termination reasons. | Court: OHR ignored material evidence and misapplied standards; its findings are not supported by substantial evidence; remand for further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. Phoenixville Sch. Dist., 184 F.3d 296 (3d Cir. 1999) (interactive process requires communication to identify limitations and potential accommodations)
- Fjellestad v. Pizza Hut of Am., Inc., 188 F.3d 944 (8th Cir. 1999) (examples of employer conduct that constitute participation in interactive process)
- Cravens v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 214 F.3d 1011 (8th Cir. 2000) (failure to engage in interactive process is prima facie evidence of bad faith)
- Hunt v. District of Columbia, 66 A.3d 987 (D.C. 2013) (employer must discuss job modifications to accommodate disability; courts look to ADA jurisprudence)
- Darden v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 911 A.2d 410 (D.C. 2006) (agency decision fails where it ignores material evidence)
- Brady v. Office of the Sergeant at Arms, 520 F.3d 490 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (burden-shifting framework for retaliation and plaintiff’s burden to show pretext)