Huff v. Buttigieg

• Citation: 42 F.4th 638
• Decision Date: 28 July 2022
• Docket Number: 21-1257
• Parties: Alice Robbins HUFF, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Pete BUTTIGIEG, Secretary of Transportation, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)

42 F.4th 638

Alice Robbins HUFF, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.Pete BUTTIGIEG, Secretary of Transportation, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 21-1257

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Argued January 5, 2022

Decided July 28, 2022

Natalie Dickey, Attorney, JOHN H. HASKIN & ASSOCIATES, Indianapolis, IN, for Plaintiff - Appellant.

J. Taylor Kirklin, Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Indianapolis, IN, for Defendant - Appellee.

Before Kanne,^* Wood, and Brennan, Circuit Judges.

Brennan, Circuit Judge.

Alice Robbins Huff worked for the Federal Aviation Administration in a position that required her to follow a strict alcohol and drug policy. She violated that policy when she was arrested for an alcohol-related offense. By self-reporting this infraction, she avoided immediate disciplinary action, but only if she completed a rehabilitation plan designed and supervised by the FAA.

Huff agreed to a rehabilitation plan but, for religious reasons, objected to its requirement that she attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. When an accommodation was not immediately made, she contacted the FAA's Equal Employment Opportunity counselor to complain of religious discrimination. Even after the FAA approved her participation in an alternate recovery program, Huff filed a formal complaint against the agency. She alleged religious discrimination and specifically named Ava Wright, an employee responsible for overseeing her rehabilitation plan, as the discriminatory actor. Huff and Wright did not get along. On multiple occasions, they disagreed about whether the plan required Huff to request medication approvals over the phone or email—a dispute that culminated in Huff receiving formal notice of non-compliance. This notice triggered a process that ended in Huff's removal from her job.

Huff sued the FAA, alleging it violated Title VII by retaliating against her for filing a formal complaint of religious discrimination. She also maintained that she fully complied with the rehabilitation plan's terms. The agency disputed this and defended its decision to remove Huff on the ground that she refused to follow the proper procedures for seeking medication approval.

The district court granted summary judgment to the FAA, ruling that Huff failed to establish a causal link between the formal complaint and her termination. Much of Huff's complaint focused on Wright, who lacked actual authority to fire Huff. In the court's view, independent assessments by other FAA staff members insulated the agency from any animus on Wright's part. We disagree. A reasonable juror could conclude that retaliatory animus influenced Wright's decision-making and proximately caused Huff's termination. So, we reverse and remand to the district court for further proceedings.

I. Background

As an FAA employee, Huff processed flight data, provided communication services to aircraft, and operated air traffic computer systems. Because this role entailed "critical safety or security responsibilities," the FAA classified it as a "testing designated position." Employees in such positions must follow additional standards of conduct, codified in Department of Transportation Order 3910.1D,¹ including a prohibition on inappropriate or illicit off-duty alcohol use. Off-duty alcohol misuse that results in an arrest constitutes a violation. The FAA warns employees that alcohol-related arrests "indicate[ ] irresponsibility and lack of judgment" and place the employee's job in "jeopardy."

An employee who violates the FAA's alcohol-use rules may avoid immediate disciplinary action by self-referring for treatment. She must follow a rehabilitation plan designed by the Employee Assistance Program, a service within the FAA tasked with, among other things, creating and implementing rehabilitation plans for employees who violate alcohol-use rules. If the employee refuses to enter the rehabilitation program, fails to successfully complete it, or fails to "adher[e] to the terms of the rehabilitation plan," the FAA initiates a removal action. Under Order 3910.1D, "[t]here is no opportunity to enter a rehabilitation program" for failing to enter, complete, or adhere to a rehabilitation plan.

In April 2016, Huff was arrested for operating a vehicle while intoxicated. The next day, she promptly reported the arrest to her supervisor, who referred her to the Employee Assistance Program. Huff's first point of contact was Ava Wright, the Employee Assistance Program manager for the Great Lakes Region. Wright requested documentation and, in coordination with the regional Flight Surgeon's office, sent Huff a proposed rehabilitation plan.

The rehabilitation plan's opening paragraph declared, "I understand that my failure to abide with any condition of my [plan] will result in a determination of non-compliance and a referral to management for disposition, which may result in a proposed removal action and a final opportunity for treatment and rehabilitation." The plan clarified that "compliance mean[t] a strict adherence" to its terms. Pertinent provisions are summarized below.

Prohibitions and obligations. Among other things, the plan required Huff to:

• abstain from alcohol and illegal drugs;

• attend outpatient treatment;

• participate in a continuing care program after outpatient care ended;

• attend weekly meetings with her individual case manager for 16 weeks (the meetings then reduced in frequency);

• attend two Alcoholics Anonymous ("AA") meetings per week;

• obtain and meet with an AA sponsor; and

• submit to random drug and alcohol testing.

Medication approval. The plan also regulated Huff's medication use, stating that "some medications, though deemed appropriate for a medical condition, may adversely affect successful completion" of the rehabilitation program. To that end, the rehabilitation plan required Huff to secure FAA approval—through the Flight Surgeon's office—before using any prescription or over-the-counter medication, except in emergency situations. In the case of an emergency, she agreed "to report such use of medication after the emergency and prior to the resumption of safety-sensitive duties." She further agreed "to telephone the [Flight Surgeon]" using the numbers provided.

Excused absences. If Huff needed to miss a meeting or an appointment, the plan required her to "obtain an excused absence" by "hav[ing] a conversation (over the phone, by text message or email) with [Wright] and obtain[ing] her written or verbal approval."

After reviewing the proposed rehabilitation plan, Huff, a Jehovah's Witness, made a religious objection to the plan's AA-related requirements. She emailed this objection to Wright, but the record does not reflect whether Wright responded. Huff signed the plan two days later but raised her objection again during a conference call with Wright and others, during which the participants discussed the plan's requirements. According to Huff, Wright rebuffed her objection to the AA-related requirements, informing Huff that she would only honor her objection if she was an atheist.

Less than two weeks later, Huff contacted the FAA's Equal Employment Opportunity counselor to report religious discrimination.² By email, the EEO counselor notified Matthew Amato, a human resources manager, about Huff's decision to "enter[ ] the EEO Complaint Process." Amato then forwarded this email to Wright, who replied, "[Huff] is very angry and upset that she has to complete this one year program." As to the alleged religious discrimination, Wright told Amato she would "begin researching alternative programming" to replace AA attendance. But Amato instructed Wright to hold off on telling Huff about any alternatives in case they needed those options in mediation. Wright agreed.

On August 24, 2016, the FAA issued Huff an amended rehabilitation plan, allowing her to attend an alternate recovery program in lieu of AA meetings. But the internal investigation into Huff's complaint of religious discrimination continued. Ultimately, informal resolution failed, and Huff received notice of her right to file a formal complaint. She exercised that option in October 2016, this time alleging discrimination based on race, sex, age, religion and disability.

As part of the investigation, in March 2017, Wright drafted and submitted an affidavit recounting her version of events. While working on that document, she forwarded a copy of Huff's formal complaint to her husband, who did not work for the FAA. When asked why she did this, she answered that it was to explain the reason for her being "unavailable."

Meanwhile, tension arose between Huff and the FAA about the way in which she sought clearance for medications. Per the FAA, the rehabilitation plan required Huff to request medication approval over the phone and not by email. That was not Huff's understanding. Between July 2016 and August 2017, Huff sent several email requests to Wright and the Deputy Flight Surgeons, although she asserted at her deposition that these emails were accompanied by contemporaneous phone calls.

In July 2016, Huff emailed Dr. Joye Holmes, a Deputy Flight Surgeon authorized to approve medication, and informed her about several over-the-counter medications she was taking. Dr. Holmes responded that they were all approved.

Huff made three more email requests over the next year, initially addressing them to Dr. Holmes, and eventually to both to Dr. Holmes and Wright. In her requests, Huff sought approval for various over the counter and prescribed medications. She also asked for "specific reasoning" if a medication was not approved. Dr. Holmes responded by email, indicating if medications were approved or disqualified. For further explanation Huff was directed to "call the telephone numbers provided." In response to her email requests, Dr. Holmes reminded Huff that she should request medication approval by calling the numbers provided in the plan and "not by email." And Wright responded to one email request via voicemail, instructing Huff to follow...