Spector v. Dist. of Columbia

NICOLE SPECTOR, Plaintiff, v. THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-01884 (CJN)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

February 28, 2020

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff Nicole Spector was a Medical Liaison Officer in the Social Security Disability Determination Division of the D.C. Department on Disability Services ("the Department"). Am. Compl. ¶ 19, ECF No. 10-1. After leaving her position, she sued the District of Columbia for discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq.; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794; and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq.; and for retaliation and unlawful interference with leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601 et seq. See generally Am. Compl. Following discovery, the District moved for summary judgment on all counts. See generally Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J. ("Mot."), ECF No. 24. The Court denies the Motion on the counts alleging failure to accommodate (Count I), Rehabilitation Act retaliation (Count III), and FMLA retaliation (Count VI), and grants summary judgment for the District on all remaining counts.

I. Background

The Disability Determination Division is a specialized sub-agency of the D.C. government located within the Department on Disability Services. Mot. at 3.; Am. Compl. ¶¶ 19, 23. Although the Department's personnel are District employees, its tasking and funding come from the federal Social Security Administration. Mot. at 3-4. The Department's employees process D.C. residents' applications for Social Security Disability Insurance, work with medical providers who examine applicants to evaluate their claims, and make initial disability determinations. Id.; Am. Compl. ¶ 23. Spector¹ began her employment with the Department in 2009. Am. Compl. ¶ 18. She became the Disability Determination Division's Medical Liaison Officer in 2014. Pl.'s Counter-Statement of Material Facts as to which There is a Genuine Issue ("Pl.'s SOMF") ¶ 1, ECF No. 27-1.

A. Initial Request for an Accommodation

That same year, Spector's physician diagnosed her with myasthenia gravis, a neuromuscular disorder that causes muscle fatigue, blurry vision, and respiratory difficulty. Def.'s Reply to Pl.'s SOMF ¶ 2, ECF No. 28-1. After several rounds of treatment and surgery failed to relieve her symptoms, Spector's physicians recommended that she request a teleworking accommodation to eliminate her commute and keep her from the rigors of an office setting for two or three days each week. Id. ¶¶ 5-6.

In early 2016, Spector approached her supervisor, Darryl Evans, and informally inquired about obtaining such an accommodation. Id. ¶ 7. He agreed that it might be possible and promised to contact the Social Security Administration to request that it issue Spector a laptopand telework authorization. Id. Social Security's approval was necessary because Spector's work required access to Social Security computer systems. Pl.'s SOMF ¶ 4. On March 7, Spector filed a formal request for an accommodation and attached medical documentation from her physicians. Pl.'s Accommodation Req., ECF No. 24-4. She did not specify how often she was requesting to work from home. Id.; see also Supporting Medical Documents, ECF No. 27-4 at 2, 6. Two days later, Spector received a letter from Gria Hernandez, the Department's Human Capital Administrator, denying the accommodation "due to insufficient documentation to prove that [Spector's] health condition [made her] unable to work in an office environment." Gria Hernandez's Ltr. of Mar. 9, 2019, ECF No. 24-3 at 1. In response, Spector hired an attorney, who formally petitioned for reconsideration a few days later. Pl.'s Ltr. of Mar. 14, 2016, ECF No. 24-3 at 2-3.

The Department then altered its explanation for why the accommodation was not possible. Rather than denying telework authorization for a lack of medical evidence, it pointed to Spector's official position description, which indicated that her duties required her to be "in the field daily to conduct annual onsite reviews, conduct onsite orientation and training to new consultative examiners and inspect work sites." Hernandez's Ltr. of Mar. 17, 2016, ECF No. 24-3 at 4. The Department determined that the performance of these duties was inconsistent with a telecommuting arrangement and again denied Spector's request. Id.

On March 24, Spector filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Pl.'s EEOC Compl., ECF No. 24-9. The Department reiterated its position in a follow-up letter and invited Spector to suggest alternative accommodations that might permit her to continue working. Kasia M. Preneta's Ltr. of Mar. 31, 2016, ECF No. 24-3 at 10-11. Spector contested the position description's accuracy and requested a copy so that she could compare thedescription to her actual duties. Pl.'s Ltr. of Apr. 5, 2016, ECF No. 24-3 at 12-13. She asserted that she rarely performed work in the field and that she could perform the vast majority of her duties remotely. Id. Over the next month, the Parties traded correspondence and met face-to-face to discuss potential alternative arrangements, and Spector submitted additional medical documentation. See generally Negotiation Correspondence, ECF No. 24-3. The Department offered to adjust Spector's work schedule, to authorize her to work from home one day every two weeks, and to facilitate MetroAccess transportation between Spector's home and the office to relieve her of her need to drive herself, but Spector insisted that she needed to telecommute two or three days each week. Deborah Bonsack's Ltr. of Jun. 7, 2016 (recounting meeting of Apr. 11, 2016), ECF No. 24-3 at 21; Pl.'s Ltr. of Jun. 17, 2016 (same), ECF No. 24-3 at 24. On one occasion during this period, Spector overheard Deborah Bonsack, the Department's Deputy Director for Administration, mocking her to a colleague and questioning whether the request for an accommodation was genuine. Pl.'s Dep. 172:4-9, ECF No. 24-1.

During the spring, the Department focused on whether Spector's official position description accurately reflected her job duties. See, e.g., Preneta's Email of Apr. 13, 2016, ECF No. 24-3 at 16-20. But it also identified Social Security network security as a second impediment to telework. Bonsack's Ltr. of Jun. 7, 2016, ECF No. 24-3 at 21-22. When Spector first made her request, she knew of at least two other Department employees whom she believed were able to access the Department's computer systems remotely: her supervisor Darryl Evans and IT support technician Roberto Cofino. Pl.'s Dep. 119:15-22. It was Evans who had previously agreed to petition the Social Security Administration for Spector to receive access. Evans Dep. 31:2-32:13, ECF No. 24-2.

But Evans soon discovered that the proposal might be inconsistent with Social Security Administration policy. Id. Although Evans and Spector were D.C. employees, their work involved access to secured federal computer databases containing applicants' sensitive medical information. Id. at 33:13-40:7. According to Evans, as of March 2016, the Social Security Administration did not permit remote access to those databases; state-level employees had to be at physically controlled workstations to access that information. Id. at 94:18-96:19. The Department thus argued that it could not permit Spector to work from home more than one day every two weeks because she lacked remote access to the required computer systems, authorization on those systems was outside the Department's control, and frequent access was necessary for Spector to do her job. Bonsack's Ltr. of Jun. 7, 2016, ECF No. 24-3 at 21-22. Spector disputed the Department's explanation for why state-level employees could not access Social Security systems remotely, pointing to Evans's and Cofino's access as proof that it was possible to provide remote entry. Pl.'s Ltr. of Jun. 17, 2016, ECF No. 24-3 at 25.

B. FMLA Leave Request

Sensing that the negotiations were not progressing according to her expectations, Spector decided to take medical leave on the advice of her physician. Pl.'s Family and Medical Leave Application Form of May 13, 2016 ("FMLA App."), ECF No. 24-11 at 1-6. She simultaneously applied for short-term disability benefits through an existing insurance policy. Id. at 7. The Parties initially disputed how much of Spector's paid leave remained on balance and whether her leave request was properly construed under the Federal FMLA or D.C.'s analogous statute. Email Correspondence, ECF No. 24-11 at 15-17; Pl.'s Ltr. of Jun. 17, 2016, ECF No. 24-3 at 25-26; Mark D. Back's Ltr. of Jun. 29, 2016, ECF No. 24-3 at 28-29.

But the Department ultimately decided to deny the FMLA request for a different reason. The FMLA Application included the following question: "Is the employee unable to performany of his/her job functions due to the condition?" FMLA App. at 4. Spector answered "No." Id. Elsewhere on the application, she asserted several times that she was "able to perform the essential functions of [her] job with reasonable accommodation, but [her] employer [was] refusing to make one." Id. at 3. In its denial letter, the Department stated that "[b]oth the [D.C. Family and Medical Leave Act, D.C. Code § 32-503,] and federal FMLA leave programs require you to be unable to perform your duties due to a serious health condition. Based on your added statement, you are ineligible for both programs." Bonsack's Ltr of Jun. 15, 2016, ECF No. 24-11 at 22.

Nevertheless, Spector followed her physician's orders and stopped coming to work. Pl.'s Dep. 289:5-291:4. She exhausted her paid leave balance and then transitioned onto short-term disability benefits in June 2016. Id.; Nada Paisant's Email of Sep. 20, 2016, ECF No. 24-3 at 46-47. Spector remained...