Skip to main content

Federal Employee's Request for Reasonable Accommodation is a Protected Activity - Agency May Not Retaliate

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §701 et seq., protects a federal worker from discrimination because he or she has a disability.  The Act requires agencies to provide reasonable accommodation to an individual's physical or mental disabilities unless the agency can prove that the requested accommodation will create an undue hardship.  In this regard the Act incorporates the protections afforded under the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended, which includes more recent and more detailed requirements.  Accommodation may involve the removal of physical barriers.  It may also include job restructuring and part-time or modified work schedules.  Thus, a flexible work schedule may qualify as a reasonable accommodation.

Both laws expressly prohibit employers from taking retaliatory actions against employees who oppose acts or practices which are made unlawful, for making charges and/or for participating in related investigations or proceedings.  It is also unlawful to coerce, intimidate, threaten or interfere with any individual in the exercise or enjoyment of rights granted or protected by either Act.  In Solomon v. Vilsack, 763 F.3d 1 (DC Cir. 2014) the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit further extended a federal worker's protection against reprisals for seeking to vindicate her rights under the Rehabilitation Act.  It held that her request for accommodation - in this case, her request to continue a flexible work schedule - was itself a protected activity.  She could recover damages for unlawful retaliation if she could prove that the agency took any adverse action because of her request.

Thus, the agency supervisor may have unlawfully retaliated against the employee by revoking the employee's permission to work on a flexible work schedule after she requested reasonable accommodation.

In a subsequent case a district court in D.C. also noted that an "adverse action" for this purpose would be any action which could reasonably be expected to deter an employee from exercising her rights under the Act.  Where a State Department employee alleged she received an unwarranted warning letter after she requested accommodations to her various medical conditions the district court held that she could pursue a claim of unlawful retaliation under the Rehabilitation Act.  See Sanders v. Kerry, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75567, 180 F. Supp. 3d 35 (decided March 16, 2016).

Consistent with Solomon v. Vilsack, the Eleventh Circuit has also held that a request for accommodation constitutes protected activity for which retaliation is prohibited under both the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Florida Civil Rights Act. See Frazier-White v. Gee 818 F.3d 1249, 1258 (11th Cir. 2016).


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Circumstantial Evidence of Age and Race Discrimination

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit vacated a district court’s order granting summary judgment to the employer in a case alleging age and race discrimination, Kilgore v. Trussville Development, LLC dab Hilton Garden, Inc., 2016 U.S.app. LEXIS 5464; 646 Fed. Apps. 765 (11th Cir. 2016).  The text of the decision can be found at https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3188580/valarie-kay-kilgore-v-trussville-development-llc/ Ms. Kilgore presented circumstantial evidence which supported an inference that the employer’s claim that she was fired for being rude to guests was a pretext.  She presented evidence that she was replaced by two newly hired employees who were younger and African-American - Ms. Kilgore was a Caucasian woman in her sixties.  In addition, her superiors had made derogatory statements about her age (that she was “a stubborn old woman” and “too old”) and also about her race (that she was “the wrong color.”  Such comments are circumstantial evidence of d
Post a Comment
Read more

Indirect Proof of Discrimination

Title VII cases often are resolved without a trial.  Whether the District Court properly entered summary judgment for the employer is the subject of many Eleventh Circuit appeals.  A significant decision, Smith v. Lockheed-Martin Corp., 644 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir. 2011) held that a triable issue of fact exists if the record, viewed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, presents "a convincing mosaic of circumstantial evidence that would allow a jury to infer intentional discrimination by the decision maker."  And it is well-settled that if a plaintiff presents a prima facie case together with evidence tending to discredit the employer's proffered reasons for the alleged discriminatory action the trier of fact may reasonably conclude that the employer intentionally discriminated.  See Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, 530 U.S. 133 (2000) in which the U.S. Supreme Court so held, stating specifically that no additional evidence of discrimination is needed to create a
Post a Comment
Read more