Federal Court Rejects Claim by Veteran with PTSD and Traumatic Brain Injury That
He Was Disabled Under Federal Rehabilitation Act
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York has granted the defendant’s
motion in an employment discrimination lawsuit brought under the federal Rehabilitation Act,
finding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that he was disabled or considered to be disabled
by his employer.
The Case
As the court explained, the plaintiff was a veteran of the U.S. Army who served in Iraq. In
the course of his service, the plaintiff sustained skull fractures and injuries to his back resulting in
ongoing symptoms including migraines, hearing loss and memory issues. The plaintiff also was
diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”) and a traumatic brain injury (a “TBI”).
During his service in the army, the plaintiff attended military police training school. He was
honorably discharged and joined the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) as a police officer
on October 15, 2006. The plaintiff initially was assigned to the VA facility in Syracuse, New York.
In July 2007, the plaintiff began working at the Canandaigua Veterans Affairs Medical
Center (“CVAMC”) in Canandaigua, New York. In May 2015, the plaintiff was reassigned to a
position as a social services associate (“SSA”) within CVAMC.
In April 2017, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Secretary of the VA, alleging that
management at the CVAMC discriminated against him on the basis of disability.
Spring 2022
2
The defendant moved for summary judgment.
The Court’s Decision
The court granted the motion.
In its decision, the court explained that the plaintiff asserted that his suit was “authorized
and instituted pursuant to Section 107(a) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (‘ADA’), 42
U.S.C. § 12117(a), which incorporates by reference Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 (‘Title VII’), 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and pursuant to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as
amended 29 U.S.C. § 706, 791 et seq.” The court pointed out, however, that in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, “Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act provides the exclusive route
by which federal employees may raise claims of employment discrimination on the basis of
disability.”
Thus, the court evaluated the plaintiff’s disability claims pursuant to the Rehabilitation Act.
As the court noted, Section 794(a) of the Rehabilitation Act provides that “[n]o otherwise
qualified individual with a disability in the United States . . . shall, solely by reason of her or his
disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to
discrimination . . . under any program or activity conducted by any Executive agency. . . .”
The court observed that claims of intentional discrimination pressed under the
Rehabilitation Act are analyzed pursuant to the following framework:
To survive summary judgment on a claim related to an adverse employment action, a
plaintiff must first establish a prima facie claim of discrimination. Once a plaintiff
establishes such a case, a presumption arises that more likely than not the adverse conduct
was based on the consideration of impermissible factors and the burden then shifts to
