Viola Laird v. Fairfax County, Virginia
978 F.3d 887
| 4th Cir. | 2020Background
- Viola Laird, a Fairfax County employee with multiple sclerosis, received an initial unscheduled telework accommodation that was later limited to two scheduled telework days per week.
- In December 2016 Laird filed an EEOC complaint alleging disability discrimination over the reduced accommodation; parties entered settlement negotiations and Laird said a lateral transfer could resolve the charge.
- The May 2017 settlement provided a lateral transfer to the Fairfax County Police Department as a Buyer I (same pay grade), up to 16 hours of weekly telework, and a $30,000 lump sum.
- The Police Department placed Laird in the Quartermaster Section in a newly created Management Analyst I role (later retitled Buyer I); Laird refused to formally accept the revised position and remains classified in her original department while working at the Police Department.
- Laird sued under the ADA asserting discriminatory demotion and retaliation; the district court granted summary judgment for the County, and the Fourth Circuit affirmed, concluding Laird failed to show an adverse action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the lateral transfer was an adverse employment action for ADA discrimination | Transfer was effectively a demotion that harmed promotion prospects | Transfer was a voluntary, agreed-upon lateral move with same pay and similar duties | No adverse action; summary judgment for County |
| Whether the transfer was a materially adverse action for ADA retaliation | Transfer followed EEOC complaint and thus was retaliatory | Transfer was part of a settlement and would not dissuade a reasonable worker; not materially adverse | No materially adverse action; retaliation claim fails |
| Whether a voluntarily requested and employer-agreed transfer as an accommodation can be adverse | Even if agreed, transfer impaired career opportunities and thus was adverse | An agreed transfer provided as an accommodation is not an actionable adverse action | Transfer not actionable because it was voluntarily requested and agreed as reasonable accommodation |
| Viability of a constructive-demotion theory under the ADA | Laird previously alleged constructive demotion (contends intolerable conditions compelled transfer) | County notes issue abandoned on appeal | Court declined to decide if constructive demotion is cognizable under the ADA because Laird abandoned it; concurrence discusses the doctrine but majority does not decide |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (establishes burden-shifting framework for employment discrimination claims)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (defines materially adverse action standard for retaliation)
- Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (2013) (addresses causation standard in retaliation claims)
- Simpson v. Borg-Warner Auto., Inc., 196 F.3d 873 (7th Cir. 1999) (employee-requested transfer is not an adverse action)
- Glymph v. Spartanburg Gen. Hosp., 783 F.2d 476 (4th Cir. 1986) (voluntary move defeats discrimination claim)
- Adams v. Anne Arundel Cty. Pub. Schs., 789 F.3d 422 (4th Cir. 2015) (adverse action requires a significant detriment)
- Carter v. Ball, 33 F.3d 450 (4th Cir. 1994) (demotion can constitute constructive discharge)