Susan Qashu, a visually impaired fellow, worked with the American Association for the Advancement of Science at the State Department starting in February 2016. During her tenure, she alleged that the State Department failed to provide adequate accommodations for her disability, discriminated against her based on that disability, and retaliated against her for filing complaints. Specific grievances included issues with screen-reading software, noise in her office, and a supervisor's conduct. Although the State Department provided some accommodations like noise-cancelling headphones and screen-reading software, Qashu claimed they were insufficient. In June 2016, the State Department offered to renew her fellowship, but Qashu did not return the signed paperwork after requesting several modifications. The offer was rescinded in July 2016. Later, she was not selected to lead an ocean-acidification portfolio, a role she had not proposed herself. Qashu filed a formal complaint in August 2016 and eventually sued in 2021, alleging violations of the Rehabilitation Act. The district court granted summary judgment to the State Department, and Qashu appealed to the D.C. Circuit.
The court applied the burden-shifting framework under the Rehabilitation Act, which incorporates the standards of the Americans with Disabilities Act. First, regarding reasonable accommodation, the court emphasized that the interactive process is a means to determine available accommodations, not an end in itself. The court found that Qashu had not proven the State Department denied a request or acted in bad faith. Notably, Qashu had previously complimented the Division for accommodating her 'COMPLETELY' and 'BEAUTIFULLY.' For later requests, the court noted that the State Department moved her to a quiet office, provided readers when available, and worked diligently to fix software issues. The court stressed that 'employers are not required to provide a perfect accommodation or the very accommodation most strongly preferred by the employee.' Second, on discrimination, the court found the State Department offered legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its actions. The rescission of the renewal offer was due to Qashu's failure to accept an updated offer, a reason the court found not pretextual because an eager fellow would typically accept such an offer. Similarly, the failure to assign the ocean-acidification portfolio was because Qashu did not recommend herself for the role. The court rejected the argument that rude behavior by supervisors constituted pretext, noting that rudeness alone is insufficient to infer discrimination. Finally, on retaliation, the court found no evidence that the adverse actions were taken because Qashu filed complaints, as the legitimate reasons for those actions remained valid and unconnected to her protected activity.
The decision reinforces that federal agencies are not liable for failing to provide perfect accommodations if they engage in a good-faith interactive process. It clarifies that an employee's failure to accept a renewal offer or to self-nominate for a position can constitute legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for adverse employment actions, even if the employee alleges disability-based animus. The ruling leaves the district court's summary judgment in favor of the government intact, effectively closing the case for Qashu.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download