Reaffirming the 45-Day Exhaustion Rule and Employer Accommodation Parameters under the Rehabilitation Act

Introduction

Angela Gilder-Lucas, a supervisor of education at a federal prison in Tallahassee, Florida, developed serious anxiety-related disorders which, she alleged, rendered her current working environment intolerable. She requested two accommodations from the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”): (1) extended leave and (2) reassignment to an equivalent vacant position near her home in Montgomery, Alabama. Although the BOP (acting through the U.S. Attorney General) offered intermittent leave and two alternative jobs, Gilder-Lucas considered these measures inadequate and filed:

• An internal EEO complaint in October 2021 (later amended on 25 January 2022), and
• A federal lawsuit alleging (a) failure to reasonably accommodate her disability under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and (b) unlawful retaliation for requesting accommodation.

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida granted summary judgment to the Attorney General. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit (non-published, per curiam) affirmed, holding that:

1. The accommodation claim was untimely because the denial was not raised within the mandatory 45-day period prescribed by 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(a)(1);
2. The BOP had offered facially reasonable accommodations, which Gilder-Lucas declined; and
3. No prima facie case of retaliation was established.

Summary of the Judgment

1. Exhaustion & Timeliness: Federal employees must initiate EEO contact within 45 days of the challenged action. Gilder-Lucas first mentioned the November 2021 denial on 25 January 2022—outside the 45-day window. Tolling under § 1614.105(a)(2) was inapplicable, and arguments of a “continuing violation” were forfeited because they were not advanced below.

2. Reasonable Accommodation: Under the Rehabilitation Act, an employer need only provide reasonable, not preferred, accommodations. The BOP offered (a) protected FMLA leave and (b) two alternative positions, satisfying its duty; refusal or silence by the employee ends the employer’s obligation.

3. Retaliation: Temporal proximity of “just under three months” between the protected request (10 May 2021) and placement on AWOL (6 Aug 2021) was insufficient for causation, and the record lacked other admissible evidence of retaliatory intent.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

• Shiver v. Chertoff, 549 F.3d 1342 (11th Cir. 2008)
  Reiterated the 45-day contact requirement for federal-sector EEO claims. The panel relied on Shiver to label the Rehabilitation Act claim time-barred.
• Boyle v. City of Pell City, 866 F.3d 1280 (11th Cir. 2017)
  Explained that an employer satisfies the ADA/Rehabilitation Act when it offers at least one effective accommodation. The court analogized the BOP’s two offered jobs to the “effective accommodation” described in Boyle.
• Stewart v. Happy Herman’s Cheshire Bridge, Inc., 117 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir. 1997)
  Clarified that a reasonable accommodation does not require modification of essential job functions. Used to reject Gilder-Lucas’s insistence on reducing a six-month training requirement.
• Brown v. Alabama Dep’t of Transp., 597 F.3d 1160 (11th Cir. 2010)  and  Thomas v. Cooper Lighting, Inc., 506 F.3d 1361 (11th Cir. 2007)
  Both stand for the proposition that a time gap of more than about two months between protected activity and adverse action undercuts an inference of causation. The court found the three-month gap here dispositive.
• Parris v. Miami Herald Publ’g Co., 216 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2000)
  Provided the prima facie retaliation framework.
• McCreight v. AuburnBank, 117 F.4th 1322 (11th Cir. 2024)
  Discussed sufficiency of circumstantial evidence in retaliation cases.
• Anthony v. Georgia, 69 F.4th 796 (11th Cir. 2023)
  Addressed exclusion of speculative testimony under Rule 56(c)(2) and Rule 602. Justified the district court’s disregard of an HR manager’s conjecture.

2. Legal Reasoning

1. Statutory & Regulatory Framework
   The Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. § 794(a)) imports ADA standards, but federal-sector claimants must satisfy EEOC exhaustion rules (29 C.F.R. Part 1614). Section 1614.105(a)(1) imposes a strict 45-day limit—treated as a “claims processing rule” subject to forfeiture or equitable tolling in narrow circumstances.
2. Application to Facts
   • The November 2021 denial letter triggered the 45-day clock. The absence of timely contact doomed the claim.
   • The BOP’s leave offer and two job postings met the “interactive process” obligation; the plaintiff’s non-acceptance extinguished any further duty.
   • For retaliation, causation required either (a) very close temporal proximity or (b) other evidence of retaliatory motive. Neither was present, and the only purported “direct evidence” was inadmissible speculation.
3. Evidentiary Scrutiny
   Speculative testimony lacking personal knowledge was excluded under Rule 602. This underscores that summary-judgment affidavits must be concrete and admissible.

3. Likely Impact

• Federal-Sector Litigation: Reinforces that plaintiffs must amend EEO complaints promptly when new discrete acts (e.g., denial of accommodation) occur. Late amendments expose claims to dismissal regardless of merits.
• Employer Best Practices: Demonstrates that offering alternative positions with equivalent pay/location may suffice, even if the employee prefers other arrangements. Employers need not tailor every element (e.g., training duration) when doing so would alter essential functions.
• Retaliation Claims: Narrows temporal-proximity inference to
• Evidentiary Gatekeeping: Highlights Rule 56’s role in filtering speculative or foundation-less testimony at summary judgment.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Rehabilitation Act vs. ADA: For federal employees, the Rehabilitation Act is the analog of the ADA. The substantive rights are the same, but procedures differ—most notably the 45-day EEO requirement.
• Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies: Before suing, a federal employee must first pursue the internal EEO process. Failure to do so within set timeframes typically bars suit.
• Reasonable Accommodation: A modification or adjustment that enables a qualified individual with a disability to perform job duties or enjoy equal benefits. Employers must offer accommodations that are effective; employees cannot demand “ideal” or “preferred” options.
• AWOL (Absent Without Leave): Employment status assigned when an employee is absent without approved leave. AWOL can be adverse if improperly motivated, but here it was purely administrative.
• Temporal Proximity: A doctrine in retaliation law: If an adverse action closely follows protected activity, courts may infer causation. The Eleventh Circuit typically requires a gap of less than three months to be “very close.”

Conclusion

While non-precedential, Gilder-Lucas v. U.S. Attorney General delivers three clear messages within Eleventh Circuit jurisprudence:

1. The 45-day exhaustion window remains inflexible absent genuine grounds for tolling.
2. An employer meets its Rehabilitation Act duty by proposing effective accommodations; the employee’s preference does not dictate the outcome.
3. Retaliation plaintiffs must show more than a three-month gap or speculative testimony to survive summary judgment.

Collectively, the opinion bolsters procedural rigor in federal-sector disability litigation and clarifies that the interactive process is a two-way street—an employer’s reasonable offers are enough when the employee fails to engage.