Wilson v. Wilkie, 1:20-cv-05695

Deontae Wilson sued the Department of Veterans Affairs, alleging violations of the Rehabilitation Act (disability discrimination) and Privacy Act (unauthorized disclosure of medical information).
Wilson claimed her confidential medical records were accessed and disseminated without authorization by agency employees.
The Agency initially moved for summary judgment in 2022, which was denied because of factual disputes regarding both claims; Wilson had withdrawn her Rehabilitation Act retaliation claim.
After additional motions, the Agency filed a second summary judgment motion, raising new legal arguments not previously addressed.
The court considered whether Wilson exhausted administrative remedies for her Rehabilitation Act claim and whether she proved "actual damages" (required under the Privacy Act).
The court denied summary judgment on the Rehabilitation Act claim but granted it for the Privacy Act claim due to insufficient proof of economic damages.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Wilson exhaust administrative remedies for her Rehabilitation Act claim?	EEOC investigation covered all relevant incidents and gave the Agency fair notice.	Claims regarding record access/disclosures were untimely or not exhausted administratively.	Wilson exhausted administrative remedies; claim can proceed to trial.
Did Wilson show "actual damages" under the Privacy Act?	Suffered emotional distress and economic harm due to unauthorized disclosures.	No evidence of actual pecuniary damages; emotional distress not compensable under the Act.	No "actual damages" shown; Privacy Act claim dismissed.
Was late disclosure of economic damages justified or harmless?	Damages became clearer over time; Agency had access to related records.	Late disclosures unsupported and prejudicial; Agency lacked notice or evidence of actual damages.	Late and unsupported disclosures excluded—damages not considered.
Should summary judgment be granted on Rehabilitation Act and Privacy Act claims?	Both claims have genuine fact disputes meriting trial.	No genuine issue regarding Privacy Act damages; Rehabilitation Act claim not properly exhausted.	Granted for Privacy Act claim, denied for Rehabilitation Act claim.

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (sets summary judgment standard: genuine dispute of material fact required for trial)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (burden on movant to show absence of genuine dispute at summary judgment)
F.A.A. v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 284 (2012) (Privacy Act requires proof of "actual damages" as pecuniary loss; emotional distress not enough)
Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 455 U.S. 385 (1982) (administrative exhaustion in Title VII context is mandatory but subject to waiver and tolling)