Pohlen v. Mayorkas

Background

Michelle Pohlen was an investigator with Homeland Security Investigations, the investigative arm of the Department of Homeland Security, stationed in Rapid City, South Dakota. She alleged that a sexual assault by another Homeland Security Investigations employee in March 2020 led to panic attacks and other mental-health problems. She also alleged that viewing child-pornography images during criminal investigations worsened her condition.

After Pohlen told her supervisor in March 2021 that she had nearly committed suicide the previous evening because of how he treated her, she surrendered her weapon and credentials as required by Department of Homeland Security policy. She requested leave for residential treatment and asked to transfer to St. Paul, Minnesota, as a reasonable accommodation for her mental-health issues. At that time, she did not ask to be removed from sex-crime investigations.

An independent psychological examiner later concluded that Pohlen could perform an investigator’s duties but should not be required to investigate sexual crimes, including child exploitation, because of her past trauma. Pohlen amended her accommodation request to ask that she not be assigned to sexual crimes. Homeland Security Investigations determined that the ability to investigate sex crimes was an essential responsibility of the investigator position, denied her transfer request, and offered her a position in Duluth, Minnesota, that would not require sex-crime investigations. Pohlen refused that position, and Homeland Security Investigations later terminated her employment.

Pohlen originally asserted claims for hostile work environment and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and disability discrimination and retaliation under the Rehabilitation Act. After an earlier partial dismissal, the only remaining claim was that Homeland Security Investigations failed to accommodate her disability in violation of the Rehabilitation Act.

Legal standard and parties’ arguments

The government moved for summary judgment. Summary judgment is appropriate when the record shows no genuine dispute over a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The government argued that Pohlen was not an “otherwise qualified” individual under the Rehabilitation Act because she could not perform an essential function of the investigator position. Pohlen argued that whether she was qualified was a fact-based question and that discovery was still at an early stage.

To establish that she was qualified, Pohlen had to show that she had the required skills, education, experience, and training and could perform the position’s essential functions with or without a reasonable accommodation. The court considered the employer’s judgment, the written job description, the consequences of removing a function, and other factors identified in the applicable regulation.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that the record showed Pohlen could not investigate sex crimes. The psychological examiner recommended that she not be assigned to sexual crimes, and Pohlen’s later expert psychologist stated that sex-crime investigations could reactivate her post-traumatic stress disorder and were disqualifying. The court found that Pohlen’s own willingness to investigate sex crimes did not create a factual dispute because the medical evidence indicated that she could not perform that function.

The court also concluded that investigating sex crimes was an essential function of the investigator position. Homeland Security Investigations considered it essential, and the job description required investigators to conduct criminal investigations involving federal offenses, including sex trafficking. Pohlen acknowledged that sex-crime investigations had been part of her duties, although she estimated they made up less than five percent of her overall investigative workload.

The court rejected Pohlen’s argument that she sought only to avoid viewing child pornography. It found that both the examiner’s recommendation and Pohlen’s amended accommodation request addressed sex-crime investigations more broadly. The court also rejected the need for further discovery, concluding that the record was not ambiguous and that additional evidence about how often other investigators handled sex crimes would not change its conclusion.

Relying on Eighth Circuit precedent, the court stated that an employer need not reassign or eliminate an essential job function to accommodate an employee. Because investigators must be able to investigate all aspects of federal crimes, including sex-trafficking components discovered during an investigation, Homeland Security Investigations could not simply carve out sex-crime work from Pohlen’s position. The court further noted that Homeland Security Investigations had offered Pohlen another position that would have accommodated her stated limitation, but she refused any accommodation other than exemption from sex-crime investigations.

Disposition

The court held that Pohlen could not show that she was able to perform the essential functions of her investigator position with a reasonable accommodation. Judge Magnuson granted Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed the matter with prejudice. The order directed that judgment be entered accordingly.