Tempie Bell v. David Shulkin, 709 F. App'x 167

Tempie Ann Bell sued the Durham VA Medical Center under the Rehabilitation Act for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, retaliation, and hostile work environment relating to her employment and reassignment.
The district court granted summary judgment to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on all claims; Bell appealed.
Bell’s amended complaint listed four causes of action but did not separately plead a failure-to-accommodate claim.
The district court held Bell failed to plead failure-to-accommodate with fair notice, that her reassignment was not shown to be an adverse employment action (and, alternatively, that nondiscriminatory reasons were not shown to be pretext), and that alleged harassment was not severe or pervasive.
On appeal, the Fourth Circuit reviewed de novo, agreed Bell failed to plead a failure-to-accommodate claim, found she waived challenge to the district court’s pretext rulings by not contesting them on appeal, and affirmed summary judgment on the hostile-work-environment claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Failure to plead failure-to-accommodate	Bell alleged DVAMC failed to accommodate her disability in background facts, implying a claim	DVAMC argued no discrete failure-to-accommodate claim was pleaded in the four causes of action, so no fair notice	Bell failed to adequately plead a failure-to-accommodate claim; claim not considered on merits
Disability discrimination (reassignment)	Reassignment was an adverse employment action motivated by disability	Reassignment was nondiscriminatory and not a cognizable adverse action; legitimate reasons provided	Court found Bell did not show pretext; appellate challenge to pretext waived, summary judgment affirmed
Retaliation	Employment actions were retaliatory for protected activity	Actions were based on legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons	Bell could not show pretext; challenge waived on appeal; summary judgment affirmed
Hostile work environment/harassment	Discipline, coworkers’ rude comments, and alleged stalking created hostile environment	Employer argued disciplinary actions were reasonable and comments were isolated/insubstantial	Court held conduct was not sufficiently severe or pervasive; harassment claim failed

Stevenson v. City of Seat Pleasant, 743 F.3d 411 (4th Cir. 2014) (pleading requirements and plain-language sufficiency)
Jacobs v. N.C. Admin. Office of the Courts, 780 F.3d 562 (4th Cir. 2015) (standard for reviewing summary judgment)
Dash v. Mayweather, 731 F.3d 303 (4th Cir. 2013) (nonmoving party cannot rely on mere speculation at summary judgment)
Adams v. Anne Arundel Cty. Pub. Schs., 789 F.3d 422 (4th Cir. 2015) (definition of adverse employment action in disability context)
Pueschel v. Peters, 577 F.3d 558 (4th Cir. 2009) (elements of hostile work environment under Rehabilitation Act)
Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993) (objective severity/pervasiveness standard for hostile-work-environment)
Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) (high standard for abusive work environment; filters ordinary workplace tribulations)
Bonds v. Leavitt, 629 F.3d 369 (4th Cir. 2011) (reasonable disciplinary measures do not constitute harassment)