380 F.Supp.3d 65
D.D.C.2019Background
- Plaintiff Monique Weatherspoon, a Grants Management Specialist at HHS/ACF, has severe uveitis causing light sensitivity and difficulty reading computer screens.
- She requested accommodations (larger laptop, telework, screen‑reading software); supervisor approved a larger laptop but IT policy prevented issuance, so the agency provided a docking station and large monitor and later ZoomText software via CAP.
- Equipment/software procurement and fitment involved multiple offices and took several months (roughly 4–6 months for different items); plaintiff was on medical leave for six weeks during this period and missed some pickup appointments.
- Supervisor Bridget Shea Westfall issued a March 2016 Report to Duty Memorandum criticizing performance and instructing plaintiff to report to the office; plaintiff alleges this and related acts were retaliatory for her discrimination complaints.
- Plaintiff sued under the Rehabilitation Act for failure to reasonably accommodate and for retaliation; the agency moved for summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to provide reasonable accommodation (delay) | A ~17‑month (or long) delay in providing equipment/software denied a reasonable accommodation | Agency eventually provided reasonable alternatives and timely procured resources; some delay was caused by plaintiff's leave and logistics | Denied — delay was not unreasonable as a matter of law; actual delays were shorter (≈4–6 months) and explained |
| Whether agency engaged in bad‑faith interactive process | Agency obstructed/delayed and misrepresented mailing of software | Agency engaged in regular communication, proposed alternatives, and cooperated with CAP and IT | Denied — agency participated in good faith; interactive process satisfied |
| Whether the Report to Duty Memorandum and related acts were materially adverse (retaliation) | Memorandum, order to report, threats and charging sick leave were retaliatory and adverse | Memorandum was job‑related criticism, no tangible adverse effect; plaintiff was not disciplined or terminated | Denied — memorandum not materially adverse and plaintiff failed to show causal nexus or pretext |
| Pleading/claim scope | Plaintiff asserts denial of telework and charged sick leave as retaliation | Complaint did not plead retaliatory sick‑leave charge or a denial of telework; agency never denied episodic telework | Denied — court refuses to entertain new theories not pled; telework requests were not denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Ward v. McDonald, 762 F.3d 24 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (Rehabilitation Act interactive‑process/ accommodation principles)
- Mogenhan v. Napolitano, 613 F.3d 1162 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (delayed accommodations may be actionable in some circumstances)
- Selenke v. Med. Imaging of Colo., 248 F.3d 1249 (10th Cir. 2001) (factors for assessing reasonableness of delay)
- Barth v. Gelb, 2 F.3d 1180 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (federal employer must take reasonable steps to accommodate unless undue hardship)
- Aka v. Washington Hosp. Ctr., 156 F.3d 1284 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (employer need not provide employee’s preferred accommodation)
- Baloch v. Kempthorne, 550 F.3d 1191 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (disciplinary‑style reprimands without tangible harm often not materially adverse)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (standard for materially adverse action in retaliation claims)