Opinion ID: 2718298
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Denials of Accommodation Requests

Text: Solomon’s remaining retaliation claims cannot survive summary judgment. For each allegedly retaliatory denial of an accommodation request, the Secretary came forward with evidence of a legitimate, non-retaliatory justification that Solomon has left unanswered. Specifically, with respect to Solomon’s request for advance sick leave, the Secretary explained that her request did not comply with agency policy because it failed to indicate when or whether she would be able to return to work. Plus Solomon was provided with unlimited leave without pay and participation in the leave donor program instead. Solomon also presses the requested relocation of her cubicle. The Department of Agriculture never had a chance to process that request, however, because Solomon made it six weeks before she left work on April 23rd and never returned. 27 Finally, Solomon points to her requests in late May to telecommute or to work part-time. But for that period of time, correspondence from Solomon herself and Dr. Cozzens led Solomon’s supervisors to believe that her condition had deteriorated to the point that she was medically unable to work in any capacity. Even if the supervisors incorrectly assessed Solomon’s condition, and the Department was thus obligated to provide reasonable accommodation, Solomon must still present evidence casting doubt on the sincerity of the Department’s proffered non-retaliatory justification for its action. “Once the employer has articulated a non- discriminatory explanation for its action   , the issue is not the correctness or desirability of the reasons offered but whether the employer honestly believes in the reasons it offers.” See Fischbach v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Corrections, 86 F.3d 1180, 1183 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (citation and internal punctuation omitted). In response to those explanations, Solomon offers only conclusory statements, Solomon Reply Br. 32, devoid of citation to the record, and from which no reasonable jury could make the desired inference that the Secretary’s “justifications were mere pretext,” Smith v. District of Columbia, 430 F.3d 450, 455 (D.C. Cir. 2005), or that a retaliatory reason “more likely motivated” his actions, PardoKronemann, 601 F.3d at 604 (internal quotation marks omitted).