Joseph Simone, a former Transportation Security Officer at the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport, was removed from federal service in 2015 after the TSA determined he was no longer medically qualified due to a heart condition. Simone filed a lawsuit alleging disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, retaliation, and interference under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The district court granted the Secretary of Homeland Security's motion to dismiss the case, relying on the Eleventh Circuit's 2006 decision in Castro v. Secretary of Homeland Security. In Castro, the court held that the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA) explicitly exempted TSA security screeners from the Rehabilitation Act's requirements, allowing the agency to make employment decisions based on disability that would otherwise be prohibited. The district court concluded that ATSA's 'notwithstanding' clause took precedence over the Rehabilitation Act, barring Simone's suit.
The Eleventh Circuit, in an opinion by Circuit Judge Branch, began by acknowledging the tension between the Rehabilitation Act, which prohibits federal disability discrimination, and the ATSA, which allows TSA to establish hiring standards 'notwithstanding any other provision of law.' The court noted that in Castro, it had interpreted ATSA's 'notwithstanding' clause as granting Congress's intent for the statute to take precedence over the Rehabilitation Act. However, the court turned its attention to the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (WPEA), enacted in 2012. The WPEA amended the Civil Service Reform Act to explicitly state that 'notwithstanding any other provision of law,' individuals holding or applying for positions within the TSA shall be covered by provisions prohibiting discrimination based on a handicapping condition under the Rehabilitation Act. The court applied traditional rules of statutory interpretation, emphasizing that when statutory language is plain, it must be enforced according to its terms. The court reasoned that the use of 'notwithstanding' in the WPEA carries significant weight, indicating a clear congressional intent to supersede other laws. Because the WPEA was enacted after the ATSA and the Castro decision, and because the two statutes irreconcilably conflict regarding the ability of TSA screeners to sue for disability discrimination, the court held that the later statute (WPEA) repeals the prior one (ATSA) by implication. The court rejected the government's argument that Castro's dicta regarding the supremacy of ATSA's 'notwithstanding' clause over subsequent legislation was binding, clarifying that Castro did not address the specific conflict between ATSA and the WPEA. Furthermore, the court distinguished its 2018 decision in Center v. Secretary of Homeland Security, noting that Center did not address the WPEA's effect on ATSA. Finally, the court dismissed the government's reliance on other circuit cases, finding them either decided before the WPEA's enactment or not directly addressing the statutory conflict. The court concluded that the WPEA abrogated Castro and extended Rehabilitation Act protections to TSA security screeners.
This decision effectively overturns the Eleventh Circuit's long-standing precedent in Castro, allowing TSA security screeners to bring disability discrimination and retaliation claims in federal district court under the Rehabilitation Act. The case is remanded to the district court to determine whether the plaintiff, Joseph Simone, satisfied the necessary administrative exhaustion requirements before filing suit, an issue the lower court had not reached. The ruling clarifies that the WPEA's 'notwithstanding' language supersedes the ATSA's exemption, ensuring that TSA employees are covered by federal disability protections despite the agency's unique hiring structure.