Tom v. Kijakazi
- Robert Illman
- 4:19-cv-06322
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Jennifer Tom v. Andrew Saul, Judge Illman denied Tom’s request to compel discovery about “Spike” duties because SSA abandoned that defense.
Jennifer Tom’s request for documents about the Social Security Administration’s “Spike” duties was denied; the underlying employment and disability-discrimination lawsuit was not resolved by this order.
What happened
Jennifer Tom, a former Social Security Administration Benefit Authorizer, sought documents about “Spike” days, when employees handled unusually high call volumes using equipment that could not be accessed remotely. She said the information mattered to her claims that the agency failed to accommodate her disabilities and medical needs.
The Social Security Administration stated that it would not argue that Spike duties were part of Tom’s job or that they prevented her requested telework accommodation. The court therefore found that discovery about those duties was no longer relevant to the agency’s defenses, and Tom had not shown an independent connection to her claims.
In Jennifer Tom v. Andrew Saul, Judge Illman denied Tom’s request to compel production of the documents. The court also ordered defense counsel to promptly send the order to Tom by email.
The detailed version
- Tom v. Kijakazi · No. 4:19-cv-06322
- Robert Illman
- Apr. 6, 2021
Background
Jennifer Tom sued her former employer, the Social Security Administration, alleging employment and disability discrimination. She alleged that the agency failed to accommodate her known disabilities and medical needs, including her need for a fragrance-free and chemical-free workplace and frequent telework from home. Tom had worked as a Benefit Authorizer at the agency between 2008 and 2018.
The discovery dispute concerned “Spike” days—days when the agency expected unusually high call volumes. Tom sought documents and information concerning whether answering calls on those days was part of a Benefit Authorizer’s job duties. The agency had initially stated in its answer that such duties were part of the job on some occasions. In the parties’ joint letter brief, however, the agency stated that it did not intend to raise Spike as a defense and would not argue that Spike duties were an essential function of Tom’s job.
Court’s analysis
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), a party seeking to compel discovery initially must show that the requested information is relevant. Discovery is limited to nonprivileged matters relevant to a party’s claim or defense, so relevance is tied to the claims and defenses in the pleadings.
The court rejected Tom’s concern that the agency’s use of present tense in some statements meant it might later rely on Spike duties as a defense. The court found that the agency had repeatedly and unequivocally committed not to raise the issue in the case. Because the agency had abandoned the defense that Spike duties prevented Tom’s proposed telework accommodation, the requested discovery was no longer relevant to the agency’s defenses. The court also found that Tom had not established an independent relevance to the claims in her operative complaint.
Ruling
In Jennifer Tom v. Andrew Saul, Judge Robert M. Illman denied Tom’s request to compel production of the requested materials. The court ordered defense counsel to promptly serve the order on Tom by email under the parties’ agreement.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.