The Court allowed a former Census Bureau employee’s Rehabilitation Act claims for discrimination, lack of accommodation, and retaliation to proceed.

In Berger v. U.S. Department of Commerce, the plaintiff, diagnosed with Asperger’s Syndrome, OCD, and anxiety, was hired under the federal Schedule A program designed for workers with disabilities. While committed to his role, he repeatedly sought reasonable accommodations—including clear job instructions, mentorship, and a workspace free of excessive distractions—to help him meet performance standards. Although the Department eventually approved limited accommodations such as a new desk location and minor schedule adjustments, his requests for additional support, particularly coaching and training, were dismissed as too burdensome.

After just months on the job, Mr. Berger was terminated, allegedly for “unacceptable performance.” The timing of his dismissal—coming only weeks after renewed accommodation requests—raised serious questions about both discrimination and retaliation. In reviewing the case, Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron recommended that summary judgment be denied on the plaintiff’s Rehabilitation Act claims, finding that factual disputes remain as to whether the Commerce Department failed to reasonably accommodate his disability, terminated him because of it, and retaliated against him for seeking accommodations.

The Court recognized that with proper coaching and mentorship, Mr. Berger may have been able to perform the essential duties of his position. Moreover, the close timing between his accommodation requests and termination supported a potential inference of retaliatory motive. As a result, the claims for failure to accommodate, wrongful termination, and retaliation will proceed, while only the ADA claims were dismissed (since federal employees’ sole remedy lies under the Rehabilitation Act).

This decision reinforces a core principle: federal agencies, like all employers, must honor their duty to engage in an interactive process and provide meaningful accommodations where possible. When they fail, the law provides a path for accountability and justice.

Filed court documentation:
United States District Court, Southern District of New York