No specific laws identified for this ruling.
The court granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in part on her 2009 relocation and parking accommodation requests related to her broken foot, while denying summary judgment on her printer request (which presented genuine disputes of material fact) and granting defendant's motion on the mold-related claim. The case involves jurisdictional issues resolved by intervening D.C. Circuit precedent.
Lenkiewicz v. Donovan: Employment Accommodation Ruling
What Happened
An employee at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development requested workplace accommodations after breaking her foot. She asked for relocation to an accessible location, reserved parking, a printer for her work area, and relief from exposure to mold in her workplace. The employer denied or did not properly address these requests, leading to a legal dispute over whether the agency failed to accommodate her disability.
What the Court Decided
The court issued a mixed decision. It sided with the employee regarding her relocation and parking requests related to her broken foot injury. However, the court ruled against her on the printer request, finding the facts were unclear enough to require a trial. The court also dismissed her mold-related claim entirely.
Why This Matters for Workers
This case reinforces that employers must take reasonable accommodation requests seriously, especially for mobility-related injuries. However, it shows courts examine each request individually based on specific evidence. Workers should document accommodation requests in writing and the reasons they're needed, as unclear requests may not succeed in court.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 3 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.