Pamela Wilson v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs Department of Veterans Affairs

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: June 3, 2022
• Docket: 20-10799
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 20-10799 Date Filed: 06/03/2022 Page: 1 of 20

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 20-10799 ____________________

PAMELA WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Atlanta Regional Benefits Office,

Defendants-Appellees. USCA11 Case: 20-10799 Date Filed: 06/03/2022 Page: 2 of 20

2 Opinion of the Court 20-10799

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 1:17-cv-02110-JPB ____________________

Before WILSON, LAGOA, Circuit Judges, and MARTINEZ, ∗ District Judge. PER CURIAM: Plaintiff-Appellant Pamela Wilson, a veteran suffering from certain health limitations, appeals the district court’s order of sum- mary judgment against her claims of discrimination and retaliation under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794 (the Rehabil- itation Act), and in favor of her former employer, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and its Secretary, Dr. David J. Shulkin (collec- tively, the VA). Wilson presents two issues on appeal. First, Wilson argues that the district court erred in finding that she thwarted the inter- active process and therefore failed to demonstrate that the VA dis- criminated against her. Second, Wilson argues that the district court erred in finding that she failed to set out a prima facie case of retaliation because her unauthorized parking was not statutorily

∗Honorable Jose E. Martinez, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, sitting by designation. USCA11 Case: 20-10799 Date Filed: 06/03/2022 Page: 3 of 20

20-10799 Opinion of the Court 3

protected activity. After careful review, and with the benefit of oral argument, we conclude that there are genuine factual disputes con- cerning whether the VA engaged in the interactive process in good faith and thus failed to accommodate Wilson’s requests for accom- modations. However, we agree with the district court that Wilson failed to set out a prima facie claim of retaliation. Accordingly, we reverse in part and affirm in part. I. This case concerns Wilson’s claim that the VA failed to ac- commodate her by ignoring her repeated requests for a parking ac- commodation due to her disability. Wilson, a veteran, suffers from degenerative disc disease and partial paralysis in both feet. In Feb- ruary 2009, Wilson started as a probationary Veteran Claims Ex- aminer (VCE) for the Atlanta VA Regional Office. At the time, the Atlanta VA Regional Office only permitted permanent employees to use the on-site parking deck. Probationary VCEs could park at an off-site parking area roughly one mile from the office, from which they could either take a shuttle or walk to work. The VA shuttle ran for one hour in the morning and one hour in the even- ing. It ran sporadically at best and could only hold up to 25 indi- viduals at a time—even then, there were only 15 seats. And be- cause the shuttle lacked handlebars, standing passengers were forced to either be “pressed against an individual” or “use [their] body as a stance” to avoid falling over. Roughly 80 probationary VCEs commuted per day. Because of the shuttle’s shortcomings, Wilson effectively faced the option of either walking to work— USCA11 Case: 20-10799 Date Filed: 06/03/2022 Page: 4 of 20

4 Opinion of the Court 20-10799

which “put enormous pressure on her nerves” and caused her legs and feet to swell—or parking in unassigned handicapped spaces in the on-site parking deck. 1 Wilson made the latter choice, leading to numerous parking tickets and counseling memos about her un- authorized parking. As an employee with a disability, Wilson was told to bring any requests she may have for workplace accommodations to Ce- lesta Chapin, her Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor with the VA’s Rehabilitation and Employment Division. Between March and July 2009, Wilson communicated her needs for a parking ac- commodation on six occasions to VA personnel—in all instances, Wilson stated that the VA refused to accommodate her requests in violation of the Rehabilitation Act. Wilson identified six distinct failures by the VA to accom- modate or respond to her requests for an accommodation, occur- ring on the following dates in 2009: (1) March 31, (2) April 13, (3) April 17, 2 (4) May 12, (5) July 7, and (6) July 8 and thereafter. The record evidence shows the following regarding these events. Wilson described the first instance in a sworn statement. On March 31, 2009, Wilson emailed Chapin to inform her that the parking situation at the VA aggravated her disability and that she

1 Wilson confirmed at oral argument that she had a Georgia handicapped park-

ing placard on her vehicle at the time. 2 The April 17 allegation appears to be a mistaken reference to an email, at- tached as an exhibit that was actually dated April 21, 2009. USCA11 Case: 20-10799 Date Filed: 06/03/2022 Page: 5 of 20

20-10799 Opinion of the Court 5

needed a parking accommodation. Chapin informed Wilson that she would make a workplace accommodation request to Human Resources (HR) on her behalf. Wilson never received follow-up from this meeting. With regard to the second occasion, occurring on April 13, 2009, Wilson stated that she met with Eboni White, her direct su- pervisor, after receiving a counseling memo for unauthorized park- ing in the on-site parking deck. During the meeting, Wilson ex- plained that her disability forced her to park on-site and that she was working with Chapin to obtain permission to park in the on- site parking deck, for which she needed White’s assistance. White then said that she would communicate with Chapin. However, White did not relay Wilson’s request to Chapin or anyone in HR, nor did White follow up with Wilson regarding her request. Wilson’s affidavit states that the third occasion occurred on April 21, 2009. Wilson stated that she emailed Praileau Young, an HR assistant, to ask where she could find the paperwork necessary to submit a parking accommodation request. Young responded that she had forwarded Wilson’s email to the “appropriate person,” but Wilson never received the requested information. On the same day, Wilson emailed Chapin again to confirm the status of her request. Chapin responded that she thought Wilson dropped the matter, but then requested from Wilson the name of her super- visor so that Chapin could request an assessment. Wilson re- sponded and asked Chapin to submit the request on her behalf. USCA11 Case: 20-10799 Date Filed: 06/03/2022 Page: 6 of 20

6 Opinion of the Court 20-10799

In the same affidavit, concerning the fourth instance, Wilson stated that she met again with Chapin on May 12, 2009. At this meeting, Chapin reminded her to discuss her request with her su- pervisor. Wilson testified that she believed management was ig- noring her since she had already spoken with White to no avail. On July 1, 2009, union representative Rebecca Manning gave her own parking badge to Wilson with permission to use it to park at the on-site parking deck. Because the badge did not work, Wilson asked an HR Liaison, Vivian DeLoach, for help. On July 7, 2009, DeLoach informed Wilson that she was not authorized to park there. Making this the fifth occasion, Wilson testified that she believed then that her request had been denied after all. Regarding the last occasion, Wilson testified that she emailed DeLoach on July 8, 2009, to request “the appropriate pa- perwork to file for reasonable parking accommodations due to my service-connected disability,” which she identified as “degenerative disc disease, with [herniated] discs and partial paralysis in both of [her] feet.” Wilson stated that she would be willing to provide medical documentation and facilitate contact with her doctor if necessary. On July 16, 2009, Unit Chief John Clayton Smith—who replaced White as Wilson’s direct supervisor—followed-up to ver- bally inform Wilson that he consulted with HR and that they “d[id] not see a connection [between parking privileges] and the essential function of you performing your job.” Wilson interpreted this as the sixth instance of the VA’s failure to accommodate. Wilson then emailed DeLoach for written confirmation of Smith’s “denial” of USCA11 Case: 20-10799 Date Filed: 06/03/2022 Page: 7 of 20

20-10799 Opinion of the Court 7

her request for accommodations. Smith followed up with Wilson via email and reiterated that neither he nor HR saw the need for an accommodation but did not deny the request outright. DeLoach responded that although she was not the approving official for ac- commodation requests, she would assist Smith in helping Wilson understand how to properly submit a request. On July 22, 2009, Wilson filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging discrimi- nation by the VA. Within hours of filing the complaint, Wilson received a letter from Smith titled “Certification of Need for a Rea- sonable Accommodation.” Smith therein acknowledged Wilson’s accommodation request and requested, inter alia, medical docu- mentation to evaluate her request. The letter also reminded Wil- son yet again that “parking is not a condition of employment, nor related to the essential functions of your position.” This was the same language that Smith used in previously denying her request. Wilson testified that she never provided the documentation be- cause she understood the letter to be a preemptive denial. Wilson did not receive any follow-up. Wilson testified that she soon thereafter suffered harass- ment. This harassment consisted, in part, of what she considered a pretextual disciplinary reprimand for leaving overtime work 45 minutes early because she felt ill. Wilson also applied for a Rating Veteran’s Service Representative position (RVSR) around this time but was not selected despite her allegation that she was more qual- ified than the selected applicant. On September 3, 2009, Wilson USCA11 Case: 20-10799 Date Filed: 06/03/2022 Page: 8 of 20

8 Opinion of the Court 20-10799

withdrew her EEOC complaint on advisement from her EEOC counselor. Her EEOC counselor discussed the matter with De- Loach, who responded, “if [parking] was going to be a problem [Wilson] might want to reevaluate her decision to work there.” Wilson stated that she continued to park in on-site handicapped spaces and amassed several parking tickets and letters of counseling because she believed that the VA unlawfully denied her accommo- dations request. Wilson also received a negative performance ap- praisal during this time, to which she filed a union grievance. Shortly thereafter, Jeannie Daniel, the VA Regional Assistant Edu- cation Officer, recommended to the VA regional Director Alfred Bocchicchio that Wilson be terminated for poor performance. The VA terminated Wilson on December 18, 2009, with a letter citing both her parking violations and poor performance as justification. Wilson applied again for the RVSR position in 2011, and was again not selected, despite her allegation that here, too, she was the most qualified candidate. Wilson stated that she believed she was not selected on either occasion because the decisionmakers knew of her disability and her EEOC complaint. In 2017, Wilson sued the VA for violating the Rehabilitation Act by (1) unlawfully discriminating against her, a disabled individ- ual, as to the terms and conditions of her employment, and (2) re- taliating after she made protected complaints about such discrimi- nation. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the VA. On Wilson’s first claim, the district court found that Wil- son failed to show a genuine issue of material fact concerning USCA11 Case: 20-10799 Date Filed: 06/03/2022 Page: 9 of 20

20-10799 Opinion of the Court 9

whether the VA had denied her request for reasonable accommo- dations. The district court also found that Wilson thwarted the in- teractive process that the VA eventually entered with her by refus- ing to provide the medical documentation that the VA requested to assess her request. On Wilson’s second claim, the district court found that Wilson failed to establish a prima facie retaliation case because her unauthorized parking was not protected activity. Fur- ther, the district court found that Wilson could not show that her termination was pretextual. Wilson timely appealed. II. We review an entry of summary judgment de novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Collar v. Abalux, Inc., 895 F.3d 1278, 1281 (11th Cir. 2018). “The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). No genuine issue of material fact exists unless a reasonable jury could return a verdict in favor of the non-moving party. Morton v. Kirkwood, 707 F.3d 1276, 1284 (11th Cir. 2013). III. The first issue that Wilson raises on appeal is whether the district court erred in awarding summary judgment to the VA on her discrimination claim. Because we find that Wilson raises a gen- uine issue of material fact concerning whether the VA failed to pro- vide a reasonable accommodation, we reverse. USCA11 Case: 20-10799 Date Filed: 06/03/2022 Page: 10 of 20

10 Opinion of the Court 20-10799

In making its determination on this claim, the district court found that Wilson’s accommodations requests prior to July 8, 2009, were not specific enough to trigger the VA’s obligation to provide an accommodation or to engage in the interactive process. It fur- ther held that because Wilson failed to provide the medical docu- mentation that the VA requested, she thereby thwarted the inter- active process and was thus barred from recovery on her failure-to- accommodate claim. Wilson argues that the district court erred on both points. We agree. The Rehabilitation Act prohibits federal agencies from dis- criminating against employees based on their disability. Sutton v. Lader, 185 F.3d 1203, 1207 (11th Cir. 1999). “Discrimination claims under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act are governed by the same standards, and the two claims are generally discussed to- gether.” J.S., III ex rel. J.S. Jr. v. Houston Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 877 F.3d 979, 985 (11th Cir. 2017) (per curiam). As such, “[c]ases de- cided under the Rehabilitation Act are precedent for cases under the ADA, and vice-versa.” Cash v. Smith, 231 F.3d 1301, 1305 n.2 (11th Cir. 2000). Under the Rehabilitation Act, a disabled, otherwise quali- fied, individual may establish a prima facie case of discrimination by showing that the employer failed to provide a reasonable ac- commodation, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer. Boyle v. City of Pell City, 866 F.3d 1280, 1289 (11th Cir. 2017). To trigger the employer’s duty to provide a rea- sonable accommodation, the plaintiff must make a specific demand USCA11 Case: 20-10799 Date Filed: 06/03/2022 Page: 11 of 20

20-10799 Opinion of the Court 11

for such an accommodation. Gaston v. Bellingrath Gardens & Home, Inc., 167 F.3d 1361, 1363 (11th Cir. 1999) (per curiam). The plaintiff also must meet the burden of “establishing that the partic- ular accommodation is reasonable.” Willis v. Conopco, Inc., 108 F.3d 282, 284–85 (11th Cir. 1997) (per curiam). After the employer is placed on notice of the employee’s dis- ability and request for an accommodation, it is obligated to “make a reasonable effort to determine the appropriate accommodation.” Gaston, 167 F.3d at 1364 (internal quotation mark omitted). In “de- termin[ing] the appropriate reasonable accommodation[,] it may be necessary for the covered entity to initiate an informal, interac- tive process with the individual with a disability in need of the ac- commodation.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3) (emphasis added). Only when the employer fails to provide the accommodation after it was demanded can the plaintiff sustain a discrimination claim under the Rehabilitation Act. See Gaston, 167 F.3d at 1363–64. On appeal, Wilson argues that the VA failed to accommo- date her disability because it spent nearly four months “ignoring or outright denying” her requests for a reasonable accommodation until it finally initiated the interactive process on July 22, 2009. Therefore, she argues that the district court erred in finding that she thwarted the interactive process by failing to provide the re- quested medical documentation. The VA responds that Wilson neither made a specific re- quest for a reasonable accommodation before July 8, 2009, nor en- gaged with the interactive process in good faith. Further, the only USCA11 Case: 20-10799 Date Filed: 06/03/2022 Page: 12 of 20

12 Opinion of the Court 20-10799

proper request for an accommodation, per the VA’s employee handbook, was Wilson’s email on July 8, 2009. The VA contends that Wilson caused the breakdown of the interactive process by failing to respond to the VA’s request for medical documentation to better evaluate Wilson’s accommodation request. The VA does not dispute that Wilson is a qualified individual with a disability. We thus focus our analysis here on whether Wil- son has demonstrated that there are triable issues of fact that she (1) made a specific demand for a reasonable accommodation, and (2) did not cause the breakdown of the interactive process. We find that she does. We now discuss each point in turn. A. As discussed above, to trigger an employer’s obligation to provide a reasonable accommodation, the employee must make a specific demand for one, Gaston, 167 F.3d at 1363, and demonstrate that the requested accommodation is reasonable, Willis, 108 F.3d at 284–85. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Wil- son, she creates a triable issue over whether she made a reasonable and specific demand for an accommodation. Starting on March 31, 2009, Wilson made repeated requests for one specific accommodation: the ability to park in the VA park- ing deck. Wilson repeatedly explained her reasoning and her re- quest to a growing cast of VA personnel who either discouraged, ignored, or provided inadequate follow-up to her requests. USCA11 Case: 20-10799 Date Filed: 06/03/2022 Page: 13 of 20

20-10799 Opinion of the Court 13

The VA argues that none of Wilson’s five alleged requests before her July 8, 2009 email to DeLoach adequately followed the VA’s procedures, identified Wilson as the requestor, or linked Wil- son’s request to her disability. But according to the VA’s reasona- ble accommodation policy, a request for a reasonable accommoda- tion may be made orally or in writing to an employee’s immediate supervisor or HR. Further, it states: “[a] health care professional, or other representative may request an accommodation on behalf of a VA employee . . . [which] may be submitted to the appropriate Human Resources Officer designated to receive such requests.” Here, we exhibit the error of the VA’s position with respect to even the first two alleged instances of discrimination. The first instance of discrimination occurred on March 31, 2009, when Wilson made her initial request to Chapin, to whom she had been advised to bring any need for workplace accommo- dation. Wilson stated in her declaration that she “informed Ms. Chapin that the parking condition at the VA was further aggravat- ing [her] disability and [she] needed parking accommodation.” In response, “Chapin told [her] that she would make a request to HR, which would then assess [her] worksite.” Chapin forwarded this request to her supervisor, Amy Thompson. Later that day, Thompson emailed the regional Assistant Director of the VA that two “disabled veterans” were “being considered for assessment of accommodation needs,” further asking “what are our options on parking for these or similar individuals?” This email was forwarded to regional VA Director Bocchicchio. USCA11 Case: 20-10799 Date Filed: 06/03/2022 Page: 14 of 20

14 Opinion of the Court 20-10799

The second instance occurred on April 13, 2009, when Wil- son met with White—then her direct supervisor—after White is- sued Wilson a counseling memorandum for unauthorized parking. Wilson explained her mobility impairments and asked for White’s assistance with the request that she made through Chapin. White later testified that this meeting made her aware of Wilson’s disabil- ity and accommodation request. White promised to communicate with Chapin, but Wilson never received a response. Whether Wilson followed the VA’s policy creates a triable issue of fact because a reasonable juror could find that even Wil- son’s first two communications with the VA were requests for an accommodation. To illustrate this, we quote the relevant portions of the VA’s own reasonable accommodation policy in explaining why. On March 31, 2009, Wilson, “a VA employee,” made a re- quest to a representative, Chapin, who “may” and did “request an accommodation” on her behalf, which Chapin forwarded as repre- sentative to “her [own] immediate supervisor,” Amy Thompson. If this was not enough, Thompson testified that she then forwarded it to the regional Director and the Assistant Director of the VA, who as supervisors (even if not immediate) were either procedur- ally or practically responsible for forwarding the request to HR. And on April 13, 2009, Wilson made “a request for a reasonable accommodation . . . orally . . . to [her] immediate supervisor,” Eb- oni White. Thus, the VA’s position that there are no triable issues of fact as to whether Wilson procedurally made an appropriate re- quest is unsound. USCA11 Case: 20-10799 Date Filed: 06/03/2022 Page: 15 of 20

20-10799 Opinion of the Court 15

Further, under the Rehabilitation Act, Wilson needed only request the accommodation and demonstrate that it is reasonable. Willis, 108 F.3d at 284–85. It was therefore sufficient that Wilson requested to park on-site and justified her request by informing the VA about her mobility limitations and her belief that the accom- modation would resolve the issue. We thus find that a jury could reasonably determine that Wilson made a specific request for ac- commodations, sufficient to notify the VA, before July 8, 2009. B. We now consider whether the district court properly granted summary judgment on Wilson’s discrimination claim to the VA on the basis that she caused a breakdown in the interactive process by failing to provide the requested documentation. After the VA was notified of Wilson’s disability and her re- quests, it was obligated to “make a reasonable effort to determine the appropriate accommodation.” See Gaston, 167 F.3d at 1364 (internal quotation marks omitted). Wilson alleges that the VA did not fulfill that obligation. And both parties acknowledge that the interactive process was ultimately unsuccessful. Even so, we have held that “liability for failure to provide reasonable accommoda- tions ensues only where the employer bears responsibility for the breakdown.” Stewart v. Happy Herman’s Cheshire Bridge, Inc., 117 F.3d 1278, 1287 (11th Cir. 1997). But Wilson alleges that the process broke down because of the VA’s actions—not her own. USCA11 Case: 20-10799 Date Filed: 06/03/2022 Page: 16 of 20

16 Opinion of the Court 20-10799

Taking the facts in the light most favorable to Wilson, there is at least a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the VA, rather than Wilson, was responsible for the breakdown of the in- teractive process. It took the VA four months to even attempt to initiate the interactive process, despite being repeatedly placed on notice of Wilson’s disability and her request. A jury could thus find that the VA’s four-month-long inaction in addressing Wilson’s re- quest constitutes a failure to accommodate in violation of its obli- gations under the Rehabilitation Act, regardless of Wilson’s subse- quent failure to provide the documentation. Even still, a jury could reasonably construe Smith’s July 16, 2009 response to Wilson’s ac- commodations requests as a denial. Having found that Wilson properly sets out a prima facie case of disability discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act, we reverse summary judgment on Wilson’s discrimination claim. IV. The second issue that Wilson raises on appeal is whether the district court erred in finding that she failed to establish a prima facie showing of retaliation by the VA. Here, Wilson argues that her efforts to accommodate her own disability by parking on-site despite the VA’s discrimination constituted a protected activity that caused her termination and later non-selection. We affirm the grant of summary judgment to the VA on this issue. The Rehabilitation Act incorporates the anti-retaliation pro- vision of the ADA. See 29 U.S.C. § 794(a), (d); 42 U.S.C. § 12203(a). USCA11 Case: 20-10799 Date Filed: 06/03/2022 Page: 17 of 20

20-10799 Opinion of the Court 17

The ADA provides that “[n]o person shall discriminate against any individual because such individual has opposed any act or practice made unlawful by this [Act].” 42 U.S.C. § 12203(a). ADA retalia- tion claims are analyzed under the same framework as Title VII. See Stewart, 117 F.3d at 1287. Because we have held that “[c]ases decided under the Reha- bilitation Act are precedent for cases under the ADA, and vice- versa,” we thus analyze retaliation claims under the Rehabilitation Act under the same framework. Cash, 231 F.3d at 1305 n.2. There- fore, to establish a prima facie retaliation claim, Wilson must show: (1) she engaged in statutorily protected activity; (2) she suffered an adverse action; and (3) there was a causal relationship between the action and her protected activity. Garrett v. Univ. of Ala. at Bir- mingham Bd. of Trs., 507 F.3d 1306, 1316 (11th Cir. 2007). Title VII’s opposition clause makes it unlawful to discrimi- nate against an employee “because he has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice” by the clause. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3. A plaintiff stating that she engaged in protected activity under the opposition clause must have staged her “opposition” on “a good-faith, reasonable belief that the employer was engaged in unlawful employment practices.” See Weeks v. Harden Mfg. Corp., 291 F.3d 1307, 1311 (11th Cir. 2012). 3

3 Although this case applies Title VII, we establish in the preceding paragraph of this opinion that we analyze retaliation claims brought under the Rehabili- tation Act using the same framework as the ADA, and therefore, Title VII. USCA11 Case: 20-10799 Date Filed: 06/03/2022 Page: 18 of 20

18 Opinion of the Court 20-10799

Wilson argues that her unauthorized parking was protected activity because it was done in protest of the VA’s discrimination. Wilson also notes the Supreme Court’s holding in Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville that “oppose” as used in the opposition clause carries its ordinary meaning of “to resist . . . [or] to contend against.” 555 U.S. 271, 276 (2006). From this, Wil- son argues that her unauthorized parking constitutes civil disobe- dience and is thus protected conduct for ADA purposes. Wilson also asserts for the first time on appeal that a reasonable factfinder could find that her persistence in demanding accommodations, apart from the parking itself, was the cause of her termination. The VA responds that Wilson failed to show either that she “engaged in a statutorily protected expression” or a “causal link” existed between the expression and the adverse employment ac- tion that she suffered. Frazier-White v. Gee, 818 F.3d 1249, 1258 (11th Cir. 2016). The VA further argues that Wilson’s parking vio- lations were not protected activity because her alleged belief that she was acting in civil disobedience was not objectively reasonable. The VA adds that there were alternative appropriate grounds for summary judgment, including the fact that her poor performance was another reason for her termination, and that she was not the most qualified candidate for the position she applied for thereafter. First, Wilson’s argument that her parking requests were in- dependent protected activity is new on appeal. Because this court will generally not consider an issue raised for the first time on USCA11 Case: 20-10799 Date Filed: 06/03/2022 Page: 19 of 20

20-10799 Opinion of the Court 19

appeal, this argument is waived. Finnegan v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 926 F.3d 1261, 1270–71 (11th Cir. 2019). Second, even if Wilson’s unauthorized parking was pro- tected, her retaliation claim fails because she does not demonstrate that the VA’s other basis for her termination—Wilson’s sub-par work performance—was pretextual. She thus cannot show “that the protected activity was causally connected to the adverse em- ployment action.” Garrett, 507 F.3d at 1316. To show causation, “a plaintiff merely has to prove that the protected activity . . . and the adverse action are not completely unrelated.” Higdon v. Jack- son, 393 F.3d 1211, 1220 (11th Cir. 2004) (quotation marks omitted and alteration adopted). The employer can then proffer a legiti- mate, non-retaliatory reason for the adverse action. Pennington v. City of Huntsville, 261 F.3d 1262, 1266 (11th Cir. 2001). Once the employer proffers a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason, the plaintiff bears “[t]he ultimate burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the reason provided by the employer is a pretext for prohibited, retaliatory conduct.” Id. A reason is not pretextual un- less it is shown both that it was false, and that discrimination was the real reason. See Brooks v. Cnty. Comm’n of Jefferson Cnty., Ala., 446 F.3d 1160, 1163 (11th Cir. 2006). In addition to Wilson’s parking violations, the VA also cited her poor work performance as justification for her termination. The VA produced evidence that the regional VA Director consid- ered that Wilson “failed to meet the minimum monthly expected 184 end products,” produced numerous errors in her work that had USCA11 Case: 20-10799 Date Filed: 06/03/2022 Page: 20 of 20

20 Opinion of the Court 20-10799

to be corrected by supervisors, and “requested overtime pay for hours she did not work and received a counseling memo for doing so.” To this point, Wilson does not dispute that her record was unsatisfactory, and she did not produce evidence that would lead a reasonable jury to find pretext. See Brooks, 446 F.3d at 1163. Nor does she offer evidence to rebut the VA’s defense that she was not the most qualified applicant for the positions she applied for. We thus affirm the grant of summary judgment on Wilson’s retaliation claim. V. Upon review of the district court’s decision, we reverse in part and affirm in part. We reverse the district court’s grant of sum- mary judgment on Wilson’s discrimination claim because a reason- able jury could conclude that Wilson made a reasonable request for an accommodation and that the VA did not engage in the inter- active process in good faith. We affirm the district’s grant of sum- mary judgment on Wilson’s retaliation claim because Wilson can- not demonstrate that her termination was pretextual. REVERSED IN PART AND AFFIRMED IN PART.