Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—D.D.C.: Employee fired after seeking change to day shift to accommodate seizure disorder advances claims, (Jul 15, 2025)

By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.

While none of her job duties could be performed during her seizure-like states of semi-consciousness, she alleged that those seizure-like states and her disorder itself were “provoked” by her night-shift hours.

A former criminal research specialist for the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) who suffered from a circadian rhythm disorder that caused seizure-like spells that her doctor said were provoked by her unreliable night-shift hours advanced claimed that she was denied her request to switch to the day shift as a reasonable accommodation and retaliatorily discharged. Denying the District of Columbia’s motion to dismiss her ADA and the D.C. Human Rights Act (DCHRA) claims, a federal court found that she plausibly alleged both that she was qualified and disabled (Reefer v. District of Columbia, No. 23-cv-03099 (DLF) (D.D.C. July 11, 2025)).

Soon after starting her night-shift position with MPD as criminal research specialist, the employee began experiencing “difficulty with her after-work sleep” and “strange paralytic episodes at work.” Around July 3, 2020, she applied for reasonable accommodation under the ADA for several diagnoses, including loss of concentration, sleeplessness, major depression, anxiety, ADHD, and PTSD.

Seizure-like episodes. While commuting to work on July 26, she had a “seizure-like” episode which caused a car accident. Afterwards, she continued to seek reasonable accommodation. While working from home on September 1, she suffered a more pronounced seizure-like episode which required emergency support. Because the MPD had not granted her requested accommodation, she began short-term disability leave on September 3.

Circadian rhythm disorder. In January 2021, she was diagnosed with a circadian rhythm disorder that allegedly interfered with functionality, concentration, and consciousness, and which was manifested by seizure-like spells provoked by her unreliable night shift hours. Because she needed to be conscious and alert throughout her work shift, her disorder interfered with her ability to perform her job during her seizure-like states of “semi-consciousness.”

Seeks day shift as accommodation. According to her neurologist, her disorder was “triggered by the impact of inconsistent and unreliable” work hours, and “resolvable by modification/adjustment of work shift hours.” Under such medical advice, she reapplied for the accommodation of “a shift change to daytime work with reliable hours” on January 8, claiming that this accommodation would render her fully able to perform all the duties and responsibilities of her job.

Fired. On January 25, MPD fired her for the “gross misconduct” of contacting the HR and payroll departments against instructions. She sued, alleging the employer failed to engage in the interactive process in good faith in response to her accommodation requests and instead aggressively requested additional information and falsely claimed her performance was substandard.

Qualified individual. The District of Columbia first argued that the employee’s failure-to-accommodate claim failed since she did not plausibly allege that she was qualified to perform the essential functions of her job with or without reasonable accommodation. In particular, it argued that because she did not claim her seizures abated after taking disability leave in 2020, she failed to show an ability to perform her work’s essential functions with reasonable accommodation.

The court was unconvinced. While none of her employment functions—answering phone calls, reporting emergencies, and monitoring radio traffic—could be performed during her seizure-like states of semi-consciousness, she alleged that those seizure-like states and her disorder itself were “provoked” by her work’s night-shift hours. Her doctor agreed, and stated that with her requested accommodation, “a shift change to daytime work with reliable hours,” she could “fully... perform all of the duties and responsibilities of her job description,”

Thus, she plausibly alleged that a change to day shift work with reliable hours would have allowed her to remain conscious and alert. Noting that she may ultimately fail to prove that she was qualified, the court concluded that she adequately alleged at the pleading stage that she could perform the essential functions of her position with a reasonable accommodation.

Disability. She also plausibly alleged that she was disabled since she claimed her circadian rhythm disorder was an impairment which substantially limited her ability to work. Although her inability to remain conscious for certain portions of the day did not substantially limit her ability to work “a broad range of jobs of various classes,” her seizure-like episodes caused a car accident while commuting to work and required emergency medical care while working at home, and neither of those episodes were tied to the particular demands of her position. Thus, she plausibly alleged that her disorder substantially limited her ability to work jobs which require consciousness—as most jobs do.

Retaliation. For the same reasons, the court also rejected the District of Columbia’s contention that her retaliation claims must be dismissed since she failed to show that she engaged in protected activity. Because she plausibly alleged a disability, this argument lacked merit.

The case is No. 23-cv-03099 (DLF).

Judge: Friedrich, D.

Attorneys: Alvin L. Pittman (Law Office of Alvin L. Pittman) for Shayla Reefer. Jessica N. Krupke, Office of the Attorney General, for District of Columbia.

Cases: Discrimination DisabilityDiscrimination Discharge Retaliation DistrictofColumbiaNews