Aileen Mullin, a federal employee with the Department of Veterans Affairs, sued the agency under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Mullin alleged that the Department discriminated against her due to her disability, failed to provide reasonable accommodations for her respiratory issues and breast cancer, retaliated against her, and unlawfully disclosed her confidential medical information. The district court granted summary judgment for the Department on all claims. Mullin appealed, arguing that the Department's interactive process was insufficient and that the disclosure of her cancer diagnosis to a union steward violated federal confidentiality laws.
The Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case de novo, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Mullin. On the disability discrimination claim, the court affirmed summary judgment because Mullin failed to prove that any adverse employment action was taken solely because of her disability. The record showed the Department approved her requests for advanced sick leave and eventually granted her full-time remote work, negating a disparate treatment theory. On the failure to accommodate claim, the court found the Department engaged in a robust interactive process, providing workstation changes, air purifiers, and modified schedules before granting her preferred accommodation of full-time telework. The court noted that an employer is not required to provide the accommodation of an employee's choice, only a reasonable one. Regarding the unlawful disclosure claim, the court established a new precedent: conditioning the receipt of FMLA leave on the submission of medical forms constitutes a statutory 'inquiry' under 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(4). The court found sufficient evidence that the Department's human resources manager disclosed Mullin's cancer diagnosis to a union steward, violating confidentiality requirements. Furthermore, the court found Mullin presented evidence of tangible injury, specifically emotional distress and anxiety that impacted her health and healing process. On the retaliation and hostile work environment claims, the court affirmed summary judgment, noting that the alleged adverse actions were merely reiterations of the accommodation dispute and that the Department's efforts to accommodate were not sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile environment.
The decision remands the unlawful disclosure claim to the district court for further proceedings, allowing a jury to determine if the disclosure was unlawful and if Mullin suffered damages. It clarifies that federal agencies must treat the submission of medical documentation required for FMLA leave as a protected inquiry, triggering strict confidentiality obligations. The ruling reinforces that employers are not liable for failing to provide an employee's preferred accommodation if they have engaged in a good-faith interactive process and provided reasonable alternatives.