Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—D.C. Cir.: Fellow at State Department, ‘COMPLETELY’ and ‘BEAUTIFULLY’ accommodated, cannot revive claims, (Apr 13, 2026)

By Todd Harrison, J.D.

Although the court did not fault the fellow for preferring a faster response regarding her requested accommodations, it found that “disability law requires reasonable, not perfect, accommodations.”

An American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) fellow who worked at the State Department for a one-year term failed to revive her Rehabilitation Act claims after the D.C. Circuit affirmed a district court’s grant of summary judgment to the State Department. The fellow delayed responding to a renewal offer extending her fellowship for another year and she never proposed taking on an open leadership position role. As such, no jury could find that the reasons for the State Department’s actions were pretextual. With regard to her accommodation requests, the court found that the State Department had participated in good faith in an interactive process to address the fellow’s concerns (Qashu v. Rubio, No. 24-5201 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 10, 2026)).

The AAAS promotes “science, engineering, and innovation throughout the world for the benefit of all.” Among its many programs is a fellowship at the State Department. Fellowships last for one year with the possibility of a second year if mutually desired by the AAAS, the State Department, and the fellow.

Accommodations. In February 2016, the plaintiff in this case began an AAAS fellowship at the State Department. She is visually impaired, and the State Department provided her with several accommodations, including software to help her read her computer screen and noise-cancelling headphones to help her hear the software read to her.

According to the fellow, the screen-reading software did not work well enough, and the State Department failed to promptly provide her with people to read aloud from her computer screen. She also alleged that she was placed in an insufficiently quiet office.

Renewal offer. In June 2016, the fellow received a letter from AAAS offering to renew her fellowship for another year. She was asked to sign and return the paperwork by June 10. She proposed delaying the return until June 16. AAAS agreed. After proposing several changes to the paperwork over the course of several weeks, the fellow never returned the documents, leading the AAAS to rescind the offer on July 19.

Complaint. Halfway through her fellowship year, the fellow filed a formal complaint with the State Department’s Office of Civil Rights. She alleged discrimination based on her disability and reprisal, pointing to an email documenting demeaning comments by her supervisor, the denial of professional opportunities, and the recission of her renewal offer.

Leadership position. About seven weeks after filing her complaint, the fellow met with colleagues to discuss the departure of the leader of an ocean-acidification portfolio. When asked directly, the fellow did not recommend that she take over the position. Nobody else recommended her for the role, which was ultimately filled by another fellow.

Accommodations acknowledged. On September 26, the fellow emailed the Director of the Disability and Reasonable Accommodation Division to complement their work, stating that she had been accommodated “COMPELTELY” and “BEAUTIFULLY.”

More accommodation requests. In October and November, the fellow made several accommodation requests, including the renewal of a previous request for a quieter office space, as well as the assistance of a reader because her adaptive software was not working efficiently. She also complained that her computer was not working as well as it should.

Lawsuit. More than five years after her fellowship ended, the fellow filed this lawsuit, alleging claims for failure to accommodate, discrimination, and retaliation in violation of the Rehabilitation Act. The district court granted summary judgment to the State Department on all claims, leading to this appeal.

Reasonable accommodations. First, the court addressed the fellow’s failure-to-accommodate claim. It was undisputed that she was disabled and that the State Department was aware of her disability. Thus, her claim turned on whether her requests for reasonable accommodations were denied.

The court noted that it need not dwell on any accommodation requests from February to September, given that the fellow had complimented the Disability Accommodation Division for accommodating her “COMPLETELY” and “BEAUTIFULLY.”

As to her requests in October and November, the court found that her request for a quieter office was eventually granted and she was provided noise-cancelling headphones in the interim. The court also found that the State Department provided her with readers when they were available, although the court acknowledged that sometimes weeks passed before a reader could assist. However, the employee was provided with screen-reading software, imperfect though it was. With regard to her computer issues, the court determined that the State Department had worked diligently with the fellow to fix her desktop, ultimately resolving her problems in November.

The court stated that although it could not fault the fellow for preferring a quieter officer prior to October, readers sooner than she received them, and a faster response from the IT office, “disability law requires reasonable, not perfect, accommodations.” Here, the State Department’s proffered accommodations were reasonable, said the court.

Discrimination. Next, the court considered the employee’s claim for disability discrimination. The employee pointed to two allegedly adverse actions to support this claim: (1) the rescission of her fellowship renewal; and (2) the decision not to make her the leader of the ocean-acidification portfolio. The court found both claims failed.

The State Department had initially offered to renew the fellowship, explained the court, and when the fellow objected to several terms, it agreed to “modify the language” to address her concerns. She never responded to the updated offer, which resulted in the recission. Concluding that she had not expressed interest in renewing her fellowship was a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for rescinding the offer, said the court.

Further, no jury could conclude that this reason was pretextual given that people eager to renew a fellowship do not usually fail to promptly accept an updated offer. In addition, if the State Department had been inclined to discriminate against the fellow based on her disability, it would not have made the offer in the first place, explained the court.

As to the decision not to give the ocean-acidification portfolio to the fellow, the court noted that no one, including the fellow herself, had proposed that she take on this role. Here again, the court found that no jury could find the State Department’s reason for not assigning her the role was pretextual. “It is not reasonable to fault an employer for failing to select an employee who does not recommend herself during a discussion about the selection,” said the court.

Retaliation. Finally, the court addressed the fellow’s retaliation claims. According to the fellow, the State Department rescinded her renewal offer because she requested an accommodation. However, she did not identify which accommodation request allegedly prompted retaliation. Even if she had, the court reiterated that no jury could find pretext in the nondiscriminatory reason proffered by the State Department—the fellow’s apparent lack of interest in the renewal.

The fellow also claimed that she was denied the ocean-acidification portfolio because she had filed an administrative complaint alleging discrimination. Again, the court noted that no jury could find pretext in the State Department’s proffered reason for not assigning her to the portfolio—she had failed to recommend herself for the role at a meeting where recommendations were solicited. Accordingly, the district court’s grant of summary judgment was affirmed.

The case is No. 24-5201.

Judge: Walker, J.

Attorneys: Ryan C. Downer (Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights & Urban Affairs) for Susan Qashu aka Pamala L. Johnny H. Walker, Office of the U.S. Attorney, for Marco Rubio.

Cases: Discrimination DisabilityDiscrimination PublicEmployees Retaliation AgencyNews DistrictofColumbiaNews