Greenlaw v. Su

Background

Rosemary Greenlaw sued Julie Su, the Secretary of Labor, alleging age discrimination, disability discrimination, retaliation, and other claims. The remaining claims at issue were disability discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act and retaliation for filing an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint. The disability-discrimination allegations concerned Greenlaw’s non-selection for a Whistleblower Investigator position, denial of a promotion to Staff Assistant, and termination from her Administrative Assistant position.

Greenlaw identified cancer as her disability during the litigation. She requested permission to bring her dog, Tippi, to work, and the request was approved. The record included evidence about Tippi’s behavior in the workplace, Greenlaw’s performance and conduct, and the roles of Loren Delicana and James Dement in reporting concerns and making employment decisions. Dement made the termination decision and stated that it was based on poor performance and misconduct, not Tippi.

Summary Judgment Standard

The court applied the summary-judgment standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court viewed disputed evidence in the light most favorable to Greenlaw when evaluating the termination claim.

Age-Discrimination Claim

Greenlaw did not offer argument or evidence in response to the Secretary’s motion concerning her age-discrimination claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. She stated that she withdrew the claim. The court treated that statement as a request for permission to amend the complaint to remove the claim and granted that request on the condition that the claim would be considered dismissed with prejudice.

Retaliation Claim

The court granted the Secretary’s motion for summary judgment on the retaliation claim. The court explained that Greenlaw’s allegations did not involve a protected classification covered by Title VII, and that her amended complaint did not allege retaliation for filing an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint. Greenlaw had not amended her complaint to assert that theory.

Disability Discrimination: Whistleblower Investigator Position

The court granted summary judgment on Greenlaw’s Rehabilitation Act claim based on her non-selection for the Whistleblower Investigator position. The court found that Greenlaw did not present enough evidence to create a triable issue that she was qualified for the position or that her disability was the but-for cause of her non-selection. The decisionmaker stated that he did not know Greenlaw had a disability or cancer, and Greenlaw did not disclose that information during the interview process apart from Tippi’s presence.

Greenlaw relied in part on a “cat’s paw” theory, which permits a discrimination claim when a biased employee influences an employment decision made by another employee. The court found that her theory depended on speculation that Delicana influenced the selection panel because of Tippi. The record did not show that the panel considered Tippi or Greenlaw’s disability, or that the panel deferred to Delicana. The Secretary also provided a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason: Greenlaw received the lowest overall score among the interviewed applicants, and other applicants were viewed as more likely to succeed in the position. The court found no sufficient evidence that this reason was a pretext for discrimination.

Disability Discrimination: Staff Assistant Position

The court granted summary judgment on Greenlaw’s Rehabilitation Act claim based on the denial of promotion to Staff Assistant. Even assuming Greenlaw performed some duties associated with that position and had received praise for certain work, she did not explain or provide evidence showing what the position required, how her prior experience qualified her for it, or how her work qualified her for the position as a whole.

The court also found that Greenlaw presented no evidence creating a triable issue that her disability was the but-for cause of the denial. The record indicated that a hiring freeze prevented the promotion and that the Staff Assistant position was never filled by anyone. Greenlaw did not provide evidence that disability caused the denial.

Disability Discrimination: Termination

The court denied summary judgment on Greenlaw’s Rehabilitation Act claim based on her termination. Under the applicable burden-shifting framework, Greenlaw had to show that she had a disability, was qualified for the job, and suffered an adverse action because of her disability. The court found evidence from which a jury could conclude that she was qualified for the Administrative Assistant position.

The Secretary offered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the termination—poor performance and conduct issues. But the court found circumstantial evidence that could support Greenlaw’s claim that Delicana was biased against her because of Tippi and that Delicana supplied information influencing Dement’s decision. Dement knew Tippi was present as a workplace accommodation and relied in part on Delicana’s reports about Greenlaw’s performance and conduct. Although the evidence of pretext was “very thin,” the court concluded that a reasonable jury could find that Dement’s decision was not entirely independent of Delicana’s alleged discriminatory animus.

Disposition

The court granted the Secretary’s motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part. It granted Greenlaw leave to amend her complaint to withdraw the ADEA age-discrimination claim, with that claim considered dismissed with prejudice. It granted summary judgment on the retaliation claim and on the Rehabilitation Act claims based on non-selection for the Whistleblower Investigator position and denial of promotion to Staff Assistant. It denied summary judgment on the Rehabilitation Act claim based on Greenlaw’s termination from the Administrative Assistant position.