Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Garrett v. Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama

United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawRehabilitation ActDisability DiscriminationRetaliationEleventh Amendment immunity waiverRehabilitation ActADA equivalencewaiver of sovereign immunity

Facts

Garrett was a highly qualified registered nurse with supervisory responsibility at UAB when she was diagnosed with breast cancer. UAB granted her leave and provided every accommodation she requested, and after treatment she returned to work without requesting special treatment. UAB discussed the idea of a less stressful lateral transfer without a pay cut, but Garrett herself sought and requested transfer to a UAB nursing home position that carried lower pay, and UAB merely approved that voluntary request. Garrett claimed disability discrimination and retaliation under the Rehabilitation Act.

Issue

Whether Garrett could survive summary judgment on her Rehabilitation Act claims by showing that UAB subjected her to an adverse employment action because of disability, or retaliated against her for protected conduct. More specifically, the court considered whether the facts showed disability or perceived disability, an adverse employment action, and the elements of retaliation.

Rule

Under the Rehabilitation Act as applied by this court, a plaintiff cannot establish discrimination without an adverse employment action, and a voluntary transfer requested by the employee is not such an action. When the asserted major life activity is working, a plaintiff regarded as disabled must show the employer perceived her as significantly restricted from performing a class or broad range of jobs, not merely one job. A retaliation claim requires protected conduct, an adverse employment action, and causation; where there is substantial delay between the protected conduct and the alleged adverse action, and no other evidence of causation, the claim fails as a matter of law.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Elena Ruiz worked as a laboratory supervisor for Lakeview State Medical Center in Cleveland, Ohio. After thyroid-cancer treatment, she returned to work, received all leave and scheduling adjustments she requested, and then applied on her own for an open clerical position at the same institution because she wanted a quieter role, even though it paid less.

If Elena sues under the Rehabilitation Act alleging disability discrimination based on the move to the clerical position, which is the strongest argument for the employer on summary judgment?

Explanation. Under the majority opinion, a plaintiff cannot establish discrimination without an adverse employment action attributable to the employer. An employee-initiated, voluntary transfer does not qualify, even if the new position pays less. The opinion specifically rejects turning an employer’s approval of the employee’s own requested transfer into employer misconduct.