Avanti Garedo v. Transportation District Commission of Hampton Roads d/b/a Hampton Roads Transit

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia grants Hampton Roads Transit’s motion for summary judgment in Avanti Garedo’s five-count Rehabilitation Act employment-discrimination action. The court concludes that Garedo did not establish a qualifying disability or regarded-as disability and, alternatively, that HRT terminated Garedo for falsifying information on a DOT medical-certification questionnaire rather than because of a disability. The court also addresses the job-relatedness and business necessity of the medical examinations required by HRT.

Holdings

1. Garedo failed to establish that they had a physical or mental impairment substantially limiting a major life activity, had a record of such an impairment, or were regarded as having such an impairment. Therefore, Garedo was not a qualified individual with a disability protected by the Rehabilitation Act.
2. Even assuming Garedo had a disability, HRT established a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employment action—falsification of the DOT medical questionnaire—and Garedo failed to show that reason was pretextual or that the action was caused solely by disability.
3. HRT's required DOT medical examinations were job-related and consistent with business necessity, and therefore did not violate the Rehabilitation Act's restrictions on disability-related medical examinations and inquiries.
4. Garedo's interference claim failed because HRT's medical examinations, suspension, and termination were supported by valid nondiscriminatory reasons and the record did not establish coercion, intimidation, threat, interference, or discriminatory intent.
5. Garedo failed to establish a disability-based hostile work environment because the challenged conduct was not shown to be hostile conduct caused by disability or protected activity and was not sufficiently severe or pervasive.
6. Garedo failed to establish Rehabilitation Act retaliation because HRT decided to suspend and terminate employment before Garedo filed the internal discrimination complaint and because the record showed legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons for the actions.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Garedo was a qualified individual with a disability, including under the actual-impairment and regarded-as theories, for purposes of the Rehabilitation Act.
2. Whether HRT terminated Garedo for a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason rather than because of an alleged disability.
3. Whether the DOT-related medical examinations were job-related and consistent with business necessity.
4. Whether HRT interfered with Garedo's exercise or enjoyment of rights protected by the Rehabilitation Act and ADA.
5. Whether HRT subjected Garedo to a hostile work environment based on disability or protected activity.
6. Whether HRT retaliated against Garedo for requesting an accommodation or filing a discrimination complaint.

Disposition

other