Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—D.D.C.: Disability claims brought by job applicant whose employment offer was rescinded following physical exam failed to survive summary judgment, (Mar 10, 2025)

By Nicholas Kaster, J.D.

It is a defense to a claim of discrimination that the employer’s action was “required or necessitated by another Federal law or regulation.”

Perceived disability claims brought by an applicant for a position as a bus driver, whose job offer was rescinded following a physical exam, failed to survive summary judgment. The claimant alleged that the employer violated the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA when it failed to hire him because it perceived or regarded him as having sleep apnea. A federal district court in the District of Columbia, however, held that the claimant failed to produced sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that the employer’s asserted non-discriminatory reason for the rescission, that he was rude and unpleasant to staff during his physical exam, was a pretext for discrimination (DeVille v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, No. 23-2126 (LLA), (D. D.C. March 7, 2025)).

Offer of employment. On August 30, 2022, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) extended the claimant a conditional offer for employment as a student metrobus operator. The offer was contingent on the claimant’s satisfactory completion of both a background check and medical screening and his ultimately obtaining a commercial driver’s license (CDL).

In order to receive a commercial driver’s license, the claimant was required to meet the Department of Transportation (DOT) physical requirements. Toward that end, the applicant was required to obtain a medical certificate colloquially known as a “DOT Medical Card.” WMATA requires that its student metrobus operators obtain their DOT Medical Cards from its third-party medical screening provider.

Sleep disorder. The claimant underwent a physical exam on September 13, 2022. The examiner noted that his body mass index (BMI) and neck circumference suggested possible sleep apnea or sleep disorder. Because federal regulations prevent those with sleep apnea from operating commercial motor vehicles, the examiner told the claimant that he could either undergo a sleep study or lose weight. The claimant elected to lose weight and he returned on October 21, 2022 for a second examination.

At the second exam, the examiner determined that the claimant’s BMI was below the threshold for possible sleep apnea and approved him for a DOT Medical Card. However, while he was waiting in the examination room, he grew irritated by what he perceived to be an “undue delay” during the doctor’s consultation with WMATA. The claimant admitted that he expressed his dissatisfaction but denied that his conversation with the doctor and other members of the staff was confrontational.

Three days later, the doctor sent an email to a Human Resources recruiter at WMATA, reporting that the claimant was “extremely unpleasant and rude” to the point where security was called. After WMATA received this email, it rescinded the claimant’s contingent employment offer in a letter dated September 27, 2022.

Offer rescinded. The parties disputed both the timing of and the reason for WMATA’s decision to rescind the offer. WMATA said that it made the decision to rescind the offer after it received the email on October 24, 2022, and it maintained that the letter was simply misdated “September 27, 2022.” Pointing to the September 27, 2022 date on the recission letter, the claimant contended that WMATA made the actual decision to rescind the offer in September 2022 shortly after the first medical examination and that it did so by impermissibly regarding him as having sleep apnea.

The claimant brought suit, alleging that WMATA had failed to hire him and had subjected him to additional requirements because it regarded or perceived him as having a disability—sleep apnea—in violation of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and the ADA. WMATA moved for summary judgment.

Failure to hire claims. Both the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA prohibit discrimination based on “being regarded as having” or being “perceived” as having a disability. WMATA contended that it proffered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for rescinding his offer of employment—the doctor’s representations that the claimant was “rude and unpleasant” to the staff and would not make a good employee.

The relevant question for the court was whether the claimant produced sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that WMATA’s proffered nondiscriminatory reason for rescinding his offer was not the actual reason and that, instead, WMATA was intentionally discriminating against him.

The court determined that the claimant failed to carry his burden because the evidence he relied on would not permit a reasonable jury to conclude that WMATA’s decision was pretextual. The claimant pointed to his statements denying that he was rude to the staff, presumably to show that the doctor’s email did not establish the absence of a genuine dispute regarding his conduct. But whether the claimant was actually rude to the staff was not a dispute of material fact, said the court, because nothing about that dispute called into question WMATA’s contention that it relied on the doctor’s statements, whether true or not, in deciding to rescind his employment offer.

Next, the claimant attacked the declaration from WMATA’s HR representative, as a “summary of general employment practices, rather than a direct account of the discriminatory actions at the heart of this case,” and he argued that the declaration failed to present any evidence that could effectively counter his testimony or substantiate WMATA’s claims. The court was not persuaded. The HR rep’s declaration directly supported WMATA’s position that the decision to rescind the claimant’s offer of employment was based solely on the doctor’s representations that the claimant was rude and unpleasant to the staff and would not make a good “front facing” employee. The claimant presented no legitimate argument to undermine the statements in the declaration.

Rescission letter. Finally, the claimant attached great significance to the September 27, 2022 date on the rescission letter. He claimed that WMATA actually made its decision to rescind his offer during the period between his first exam on September 13, 2022, when he was perceived to have sleep apnea, and his second visit on October 21, 2022, when he was cleared to receive his DOT Medical Card. Based on this timeline, he argued that WMATA could not have relied on the doctor’s email, which was sent on October 24, 2022, because her email was sent nearly four weeks after the date on the rescission letter.

However, said the court, the claimant failed to point to material in the record to support his position, notwithstanding the opportunity for both parties to conduct discovery. WMATA explained that the date on the rescission letter was a mistake, which it substantiated by pointing to (1) the October 24, 2022 email chain in which the decision to rescind the job offer was made and (2) the claimant’s own testimony that he received the letter after he had been approved for his DOT Medical Card during his second exam. The claimant could have taken discovery to confirm the date on which the letter was generated, said the court, but he did not.

Thus, the court determined that the claimant failed to produce sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that WMATA’s asserted non-discriminatory reason was a pretext for discrimination.

“Additional requirements” claim. The claimant also alleged that WMATA, on the basis of his perceived disability, imposed on him an additional requirement to which other applicants were not subjected. Specifically, he claimed that, due to his weight and neck circumference, WMATA required that he “lose weight within a 45-day timeframe or undergo a sleep study test.” WMATA did not dispute that this requirement was imposed on the claimant but argued that it was “medically necessary and job related,” and thus did not run afoul of the Rehabilitation Act or the ADA.

WMATA noted that its bus operators are subject to DOT regulations, including a requirement that the operator have “no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of a respiratory dysfunction likely to interfere with his/her ability to control and drive a commercial motor vehicle safely,” which includes sleep apnea. WMATA further maintained that it put the claimant on notice that his offer was contingent on successful completion of a medical screening and being eligible to receive a CDL, which required meeting Department of Transportation physical requirements. Aside from acknowledging WMATA’s argument that federal regulations required an additional sleep apnea test, the claimant offered no substantive response.

Accordingly, the court granted WMATA’s motion for summary judgment.

The case is No. 23-2126 (LLA).

Judge: Alikhan, L.

Attorneys: John Francis Deville, Jr., pro se. Michael Kelly Guss, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, for Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority.

Companies: Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

Cases: Discrimination DisabilityDiscrimination Discharge DistrictofColumbiaNews