Employer prevails in disability suit over COVID mask mandate

An employee who was forced to take leave after seeking an exception from a mask requirement for unvaccinated workers could not pursue discrimination and retaliation claims against her employer, a federal judge in the Eastern District has ruled.

The U.S. District Court judge granted partial summary judgment to the government contractor, Science Application International Corp.

The plaintiff employee, Patty Pratt, claimed she was forced to take leave from her job at SAIC for two periods in 2021 when the National Reconnaissance Office — which SAIC was contracting with — required anyone working under its purview at that time to wear a mask if they were not vaccinated against COVID-19.

Pratt was unvaccinated and submitted an accommodation request that she not be required to wear a mask, citing the risk of exacerbating pre-existing health issues. SAIC offered Pratt the choice of taking paid time off under a COVID leave, which she would have to make up; using paid time off; or taking unpaid leave.

Asserting that SAIC rejected her proposed alternative accommodations — a modified schedule, private workspace or reassignment — Pratt claims she was forced to use paid leave, then unpaid time off. She ultimately resigned to work elsewhere.

In a 13-page opinion in Pratt v. Science Application International Corp. (VLW 025-3-402), Judge Rossie D. Alston Jr. wrote that the plaintiff failed “to establish an adverse employment action, because, ultimately, an adverse employment action is meant to reflect an intentional decision by an employer (not by a third party or the employee), and such a decision is not present here.”

One reason, Alston said, is that the policies of National Reconnaissance Office — not SAIC — prevented the plaintiff from performing her usual employment duties.

Alston also cited Anthony v. Donahoe, a 2012 case from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in holding that Pratt was in a temporary situation “in reaction to the NRO’s policy change [that] also independently renders Plaintiff’s decision to take unpaid leave not an adverse employment action. Courts have recognized that temporary adjustments in response to unexpected situations do not constitute adverse employment actions.”

Anticipated outcome

Brian Muse of Sands Anderson in Williamsburg said Pratt is another case in which the court seems to be grappling with how to interpret disparate treatment claims after the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis.

He said Pratt also offers guidance for employers engaged in Americans with Disabilities Act discussions with employees.

Pratt affirms that, post-Muldrow, temporary adjustments for unexpected situations don’t represent adverse employment actions, Muse said.

“This is because a ‘temporary status does not reflect an ultimate decision with respect to ‘an employment term or condition,’” Muse said, quoting from the court’s memorandum opinion in Pratt. “For employers, this is helpful because workplace situations often require an employer to take interim measures while it reviews and investigates a workplace issue or incident,” Muse said. “This, like in Pratt, may include temporary paid leave (while an employee reviews whether a reasonable accommodation may be made under the ADA.)”

Muse said it could also include instances when an employer places an employee on paid leave or temporarily transfers or reassigns an employee’s duties them to investigate, address a workplace event or as a result of unforeseen circumstances.

While Pratt is a welcome decision for employers, Muse said other District Courts in the 4th Circuit may interpret similar facts differently.

He also noted the analysis in the case was straightforward, because the plaintiff’s job required working in a secure government facility to access classified information.

Arlington lawyer Johsua Erlich said he couldn’t foresee any other outcome in the case as SAIC did not have the ability to fix the issue in question.

“Courts are not going to impose requirements on a government contractor that the contractor cannot control. When a contractor is providing staff on a government site, the contractor has limited control over the workplace,” Erlich said. “If Ms. Pratt needed to be on site, and the government said she could not be there, then she cannot do the essential functions of her position with SAIC.”

And since SAIC lacked the capacity to fix the issue, “they cannot be legally responsible for it,” Erlich said.

Ajente Kamalanathan and Michael J. Murphy, with Washington-based Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, represented SAIC. They did not respond to a request for comment. Sarah Nunley McDonough and Ari Micha Wilkenfield, with Alan Lescht & Associates in Washington, D.C., represented the plaintiff. They also did not respond to interview requests.

Mask mandate

SAIC hired Pratt in June 2019 as a subject matter expert in satellite and communications systems.

According to Pratt, SAIC was aware she has health issues that cause hypoxia, which impairs her ability to breathe.

When the pandemic hit, National Reconnaissance Office began requiring all employees wear masks. Pratt submitted a request to wear a cloth mask without ear loops in the office’s common areas.

A temporary status does not reflect an ultimate decision with respect to ‘an employment term or condition.’

— Judge Rossie D. Alston Jr.

However, she claims SAIC required her to use PTO until NRO made a decision about her accommodation request. After three weeks, NRO confirmed she was entitled to the accommodation. It further said a mask waiver was unnecessary because Pratt’s style of mask complied with the mandate.

A few weeks later, NRO updated its policy, requiring unvaccinated people to wear masks at all times. Pratt claimed she couldn’t wear a mask all day due to her disability.

Pratt says SAIC required her to submit another accommodation request and required her to take paid COVID personal leave — which she would have to make up — while the decision was pending. However, she said she was unable to make up the hours because she wasn’t allowed to work. She asserted that providing reasonable accommodation, such as remote work, a private workspace or a reassignment, would not have constituted an undue hardship for her employer.

Pratt sued in March 2023, alleging five counts of disability discrimination.

SAIC sought summary judgment on counts three and four of the complaint, which asserted disability discrimination and retaliation.

Standard not met

Because the first period of leave fell outside the 300-day statutory lookback period for ADA claims, the judge focused on the plaintiff’s second leave period.

Regarding Pratt’s claim of disparate treatment, Alston wrote that even after Muldrow, “a temporary status does not reflect an ultimate decision with respect to ‘an employment term or condition.’”

Alston also found that because Pratt’s disparate treatment claim failed, her claim of retaliation, which has a higher standard, could not proceed.

He explained that “the definition of an adverse employment action with respect to retaliation, as recognized by Muldrow, is stricter than the definition with respect to disparate treatment because it contains a materiality requirement. … Because Plaintiff fails to meet the lower disparate treatment standard, it follows that Plaintiffs allegations do not meet the higher retaliation standard.”

While the plaintiff argued — and the judge agreed — that wearing a mask was not an essential job function, Alston said that was not the correct framing of the issue at hand.

Alston held that “the relevant undisputed facts” of the case establish that Pratt “was not a qualified individual with a disability” because one of the essential functions of her job was working with classified information on site at a secure facility, and Pratt was not allowed on the NRO-controlled property without a mask.

“District judges within this circuit recognize that plaintiffs are not qualified individuals with a disability where the job requires in-person work and the plaintiff cannot return to in-person work,” Alston wrote.

Even if the plaintiff could establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination or retaliation, Alston held that the defendant presented a legitimate and non-discriminatory basis for its decision.

“In short, the judge wrote, “Plaintiff has not offered evidence that Defendant’s proffered reason was pretextual and, therefore, summary judgment in favor of Defendant is also appropriate on this basis.”