Clark Law Group, PLLC secured a favorable jury verdict in Hall v. WMATA before Chief Judge Howell, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Our client suffered from debilitating migraines and was accommodated with leave for doctor’s appointments and could call out when her condition flared consistent with her union’s CBA. An earlier written accommodation decision by WMATA, had been in place for about 4 years without any issue. After a new supervisor was assigned, suddenly our client was engaged in “a pattern of excessive absences,” and received written warnings. Additionally, the new supervisor repeatedly made derogatory statements regarding our client’s disability, in particular, “do you want to be handicapped or do you want to work.” After complaints to human resources fell on deaf ears, our client tried to get out of the supervisor’s orbit by applying for a transfer to another department. After two rounds of interviews, our client was notified that she has been selected. However, when her supervisor learns of selection, she inserts herself into the hiring process and successfully has the job offer rescinded after sharing her interpretation of our client’s absences as excessive and revealing that she had placed our client on PIP. Testimony showed that whether an employee was placed on a PIP is normally not considered in the hiring process. After the job was rescinded, the supervisor recommended our client’s termination of employment for failing the PIP.
The Court had previously ruled that our client was disabled as a matter of law (Hall v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth., Civil Action No. 19-1800 (BAH) (D.D.C. Oct. 2, 2020)). The jury found that our client was not hired for the selected position because of her disability and that she was subjected to a hostile work environment because of her disability and awarded our client $254,000.