Susan Qashu, a visually impaired researcher working as an American Association for the Advancement of Science fellow at the State Department, sued the agency under the Rehabilitation Act alleging failure to accommodate, discrimination, and retaliation. Qashu began her one-year fellowship in February 2016, with accommodations including screen-reading software and noise-cancelling headphones. The State Department offered to renew her fellowship for a second year in June 2016, but rescinded the offer in July after Qashu failed to respond to updated terms that addressed her requested changes to the renewal paperwork.
The court rejected all three of Qashu's claims, finding the State Department had engaged in good faith efforts to accommodate her disability and acted for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons. As Walker wrote, "no reasonable jury could find that the State Department denied a reasonable accommodation when it participated in good faith in an interactive process to resolve Qashu's concerns." The court emphasized that disability law requires only reasonable accommodations, noting that "We do not fault Qashu for preferring a quiet office before October, readers sooner than she received them, and a faster response from IT."
The decision turned on a critical September 2016 email in which Qashu praised the Disability and Reasonable Accommodation Division for accommodating her "COMPLETELY" and "BEAUTIFULLY." Walker wrote that this email meant "no reasonable jury could find that the State Department denied Qashu's reasonable requests for accommodations" during the first seven months of her fellowship. The court found the agency had provided accommodations including moving her to a quieter office, providing readers when available, and working diligently to fix computer software issues.
The case originated in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, where the district judge granted summary judgment to the State Department. Qashu's fellowship began in February 2016 but deteriorated over the year, with complaints about inadequate screen-reading software, a noisy office environment, and alleged mistreatment by supervisors. She filed a formal EEO complaint in August 2016 alleging discrimination and reprisal, then sued the State Department in 2022, more than five years after her fellowship ended in February 2017.
The court dismissed Qashu's arguments that the State Department's reasons for rescinding her renewal were pretextual, finding her own actions undermined her case. "People eager to continue a fellowship don't usually fail to promptly accept an updated renewal offer that addresses their previously expressed concerns, especially when the original deadline has been extended by more than a month," Walker observed. The court also rejected her claim that she was discriminatorily denied leadership of an ocean-acidification portfolio, noting that "No one, including Qashu herself, proposed that she take on that role" during discussions about the assignment.
The unanimous panel consisted of Chief Judge Srinivasan, Circuit Judge Walker who wrote the opinion, and Senior Circuit Judge Ginsburg. The decision builds on recent D.C. Circuit precedent emphasizing that employers must provide reasonable accommodations through good-faith interactive processes, but are not required to provide perfect accommodations or employees' preferred solutions. The court cited its 2024 decision in Ali v. Regan for the proposition that employers meet their burden by offering accommodations "that is reasonable, even if it is not the one preferred by the employee."
The ruling clarifies that timing matters in accommodation disputes, as the court found Qashu's September 2016 praise of the accommodation process effectively undermined her claims about earlier periods. For practitioners, the decision reinforces that employees cannot successfully claim accommodation failures while simultaneously praising the employer's accommodation efforts, and that employers' legitimate business reasons for adverse actions will prevail over discrimination claims lacking evidence of pretext.