Duke v. Collins

Background

Andre Duke was hired by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) as a mail clerk in 2009 and was eventually promoted to supervisory financial administrative specialist in 2015. Beginning in 2011, Duke received workers' compensation benefits through the Department of Labor's Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP) for carpal tunnel syndrome, shoulder impingement, and a hand and ulnar nerve injury. He underwent surgery in January 2012, and his doctors recommended he work no more than six hours per day as part of the workers' compensation process.

Upon returning to work, Duke separately requested workplace accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). His chiropractor submitted documentation describing his conditions as moderately severe and permanent, limiting certain activities, but did not restrict his overall work hours. Duke did not include his doctors' earlier notes recommending a six-hour workday in his accommodation request. In September 2015, the VA provided interim accommodations — including a six-hour workday with two hours of unpaid leave compensated through his workers' compensation benefits — while attempting to engage Duke in an interactive process to find a permanent solution. Duke understood these were interim.

Over the following years, the VA repeatedly asked Duke to provide updated medical documentation to support a permanent shortened workday. The VA made the same essential offer in 2018 and again after a 2021 work capacity evaluation: the same position with certain accommodations, but for a full eight-hour workday. A doctor conducting the evaluation concluded Duke could work an eight-hour shift. Duke rejected both offers as discriminatory. The VA continued extending interim accommodations while pursuing documentation.

In May 2022, Duke reluctantly engaged in the interactive process. The VA ultimately determined he could work eight hours per day and offered alternative accommodations — dictation software, as-needed breaks, and an ergonomic assessment. Duke rejected these and again claimed discrimination. The VA informed him the six-hour accommodation had ended and that any leave for hours not worked must come from sick or annual leave. Duke continued working six-hour days without taking appropriate leave. By September 2022, the VA found he had been absent without leave (AWOL) 36 times. The VA issued a proposed removal order on September 30, 2022, and terminated Duke's employment effective October 20, 2022, citing AWOL and lack of candor.

Duke appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), which upheld the removal and found no evidence of discrimination or hostile work environment. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) upheld the MSPB's decision on further appeal. Duke then filed this lawsuit on December 27, 2023, alleging disparate treatment, hostile work environment, failure to provide reasonable accommodation under the ADA, and retaliation.

Legal Standards

Summary Judgment

Summary judgment (a ruling that ends a case without a trial because there is no real factual dispute to resolve) is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a). The court views all evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, but that party cannot rely on mere allegations — it must point to specific evidence in the record.

Analysis

Retaliation and Disparate Treatment Claims

Duke failed to respond to the VA's motion for summary judgment with respect to his retaliation and disparate treatment claims. The court treated those portions of the motion as conceded, citing the principle that failure to respond to arguments constitutes a waiver.

Failure to Accommodate

To establish a prima facie case (the minimum showing needed to proceed) of failure to accommodate under the ADA, Duke had to show: (1) he was disabled; (2) he was qualified to perform the essential functions of the job with or without accommodation; and (3) he suffered an adverse employment action due to his disability. The parties did not dispute the first two elements or that Duke suffered an adverse employment action. The court focused on whether his removal was causally connected to his disability.

The court found no such causal connection. Duke was terminated because he was AWOL dozens of times in violation of VA leave policy and for lack of candor — not because of his disability. The VA had accommodated Duke on an interim basis for years and repeatedly tried to reach a permanent accommodation. The court noted that prior voluntary accommodations did not obligate the VA to continue them indefinitely without proper medical justification. Because Duke could not establish the causal element, his failure-to-accommodate claim failed.

Interactive Process

Under the Rehabilitation Act (which applies to federal employers and incorporates ADA standards), employers must engage in an informal, interactive process when an employee requests an accommodation. To show the VA failed in this duty, Duke needed to prove the VA did not make a good-faith effort to assist him and that he could have been reasonably accommodated but for that failure.

The court found the opposite: the VA spent seven years in good faith trying to work with Duke, providing numerous interim accommodations and communications explaining what documentation was needed. The court concluded that if anything, it was Duke — not the VA — who failed to engage in good faith by repeatedly refusing to submit updated medical records and insisting on a shortened workday without supporting documentation.

Hostile Work Environment

To establish a hostile work environment claim under the ADA, Duke needed to show: (1) membership in a protected class; (2) unwelcome harassment; (3) the harassment was based on his disability; (4) it affected a term, condition, or privilege of employment; and (5) the employer knew or should have known and failed to act. The harassment must be severe and pervasive, evaluated both objectively and subjectively.

The court found Duke utterly failed to meet this standard. The record showed the VA politely and professionally communicated with Duke about the accommodation process and leave policies. None of the communications contained disparaging remarks about his disability, and there was no evidence of vindictiveness. Quoting the EEOC's own conclusion, the court stated that asking Duke for medical documentation, instructing him to follow standard leave procedures, finding him AWOL, conducting fact-finding investigations, and requiring an eight-hour shift did not constitute unlawful harassment. The court found no reasonable jury could conclude otherwise.

Disposition

The court granted the VA's motion for summary judgment on all claims and dismissed the case with prejudice (meaning Duke cannot refile these claims).