TOWNSEND, CARLOS v. HENDRICKSON USA, LLC

USCA11 Case: 22-12354 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 08/08/2025 Page: 1 of 48 [PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 22-12354 ____________________ AILEEN MULLIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Defendant-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 8:20-cv-02697-VMC-AEP ____________________ USCA11 Case: 22-12354 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 08/08/2025 Page: 2 of 48 2 Opinion of the Court 22-12354 Before JORDAN, LAGOA, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Aileen Mullin sued the Department of Veterans Affairs, as- serting many claims under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794. The claims were for disability discrimination, failure to ac- commodate, unlawful disclosure, and retaliation (and/or a retalia- tory hostile work environment). The district court granted sum- mary judgment for the Department on all the claims, and Ms. Mullin now appeals. Following a review of the record, and with the benefit of oral argument, we reverse and remand on the unlawful disclosure claim and affirm on the other claims. 1 I. BACKGROUND In reviewing the district court’s summary judgment order, we view the facts in the light most favorable to Ms. Mullin. See Taxinet Corp. v. Leon, 114 F.4th 1212, 1231 (11th Cir. 2024). Seen through that lens, the record reflects the following.2 A. Ms. Mullin began her employment with the Department of Veterans Affairs in February 2009. She remains employed by the 1 As to any issues not discussed in this opinion, we summarily affirm. 2 We include a fair number of dates in setting out the chronology of events because the dates in this case matter. USCA11 Case: 22-12354 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 08/08/2025 Page: 3 of 48 22-12354 Opinion of the Court 3 Department as a Ratings Veterans Service Representative at the St. Petersburg Regional Office of the Veterans Benefits Administra- tion. In July 2010, Ms. Mullin began to experience respiratory is- sues at work. Believing that the building she worked in was causing the respiratory problems, she spoke with someone at the Depart- ment that month about what could be done to address what she believed to be issues with the building. According to Ms. Mullin, the Department did not do anything after she first raised her con- cerns, and she was told to file a claim for worker’s compensation. Ms. Mullin’s respiratory issues worsened over time. In De- cember 2011 she informed the Department that she was still having trouble with her breathing and asthma. She asked for an alternative work schedule to limit the time she spent in the building. She also sought relocation of her workstation to a different place in the building. The Department granted both requests. It limited the num- ber of days Ms. Mullin was required to be in the office and it changed her workstation. Although she had requested these ac- commodations, Ms. Mullin did not consider them effective because she continued to suffer from respiratory issues. In January 2012, Ms. Mullin informed the Department that her respiratory issues were continuing and remained severe. That same month, she met with human resources specialist Tammi Clarke and a union representative to discuss her ongoing health is- sues. Ms. Mullin does not remember whether she made any USCA11 Case: 22-12354 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 08/08/2025 Page: 4 of 48 4 Opinion of the Court 22-12354 accommodation requests at this meeting, but she recalls that Ms. Clarke told her that her workstation would be moved from the sec- ond floor to the third floor. Ms. Mullin returned to work two days after this meeting and found that she had n

USCA4 Appeal: 24-2056 Doc: 124 Filed: 08/15/2025 Pg: 1 of 51 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-2056 CARYN DEVINS STRICKLAND, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. NANCY L. MORITZ, The Hon., in her official capacity as Chair of the Judicial Conference Committee on Judicial Resources; ROBERT J. CONRAD, JR., in his official capacity as Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts; ALBERT DIAZ, The Hon., in his official capacity as Chief Judge of the Fourth Circuit and as Chair of the Judicial Council of the Fourth Circuit; JAMES N. ISHIDA, in his official capacity as Circuit Executive of the Fourth Circuit and as Secretary of the Judicial Council of the Fourth Circuit; JOHN G. BAKER, in his official capacity as Federal Public Defender of the Federal Public Defender for the Western District of North Carolina, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. William G. Young, Senior District Judge for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Massachusetts, sitting by designation. (1:20-cv-00066-WGY) Argued: June 30, 2025 Decided: August 15, 2025 Before W. Duane BENTON, Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, Ronald Lee GILMAN, Senior Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, and Susan P. GRABER, Senior Circuit Judge of the United USCA4 Appeal: 24-2056 Doc: 124 Filed: 08/15/2025 Pg: 2 of 51 States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.1 Affirmed by published opinion. Senior Judge Gilman wrote the opinion, in which Senior Judge Graber and Judge Benton joined. ARGUED: Caryn Devins Strickland, LAW OFFICE OF CARYN STRICKLAND, Lynn, North Carolina, for Appellant. Kevin B. Soter, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Yaakov M. Roth, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Courtney L. Dixon, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. 1 Because all members of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit are recused in this case, a panel of judges from outside the Circuit was appointed for this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 291, 294. 2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-2056 Doc: 124 Filed: 08/15/2025 Pg: 3 of 51 RONALD LEE GILMAN, Senior Circuit Judge: Caryn Devins Strickland is an attorney who formerly worked at the Federal Public Defender’s Office (FDO) for the Western District of North Carolina. She alleges that her supervisor sexually harassed her, following which the response of both the Fourth Circuit and the Administrative Office of the United States Courts purportedly violated her due- process and equal-protection rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The district court ruled in favor of the government on all of Strickland’s claims after a bench trial. Strickland now appeals that ruling, as well as the district court’s previous summary- judgment ruling in favor of two of the individually named defendants. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM both district court decisions. We also DENY Strickland’s motion to unseal certain materials that she filed on the appellate docket, as well as her motion for summary reversal of the district court’s decision based on the early withdrawal of her pro bono counsel. I. BACKGROUND The district court’s bench-trial decision included approximately 75 pages of factual findings, which are largely undisputed. See Strickland v. United States, 744 F. Supp. 3d 477 (W.D.N.C. 2024). Rather than fully restate those detailed findings and the extensive procedural history of this case here, we refer to pages 488 to 567 of the district court’s decision. We will, however, briefly summarize the court’s findings, as well as several points of procedural history that are relevant to the issues on appeal. 3 USCA4 Appeal: 24-2056 Doc: 124 Filed: 08/15/2025 Pg: 4 of 51 A. The bench

TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS IN THE COURT OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS AT NASHVILLE Macey McGuire, ) Employee, ) Docket No. 2025-60-0654 v. ) TC Restaurant Group, LLC, ) Employer, ) State File No. 2734-2024 Wesco Insurance Company, ) Carrier, ) And ) Troy Haley, as Administrator of the ) Judge Joshua D. Baker Subsequent Injury and Vocational ) Recovery Fund for the State of ) Tennessee. ) EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER (DECISION ON THE RECORD) Ms. McGuire requested a decision based on a review of the record seeking reinstatement of medical treatment and temporary disability benefits for a back injury. Because her authorized treating physician does not believe she suffered a work-related injury, the Court denies her request for benefits at this time. Motions to Strike Before delving into the merits of Ms. McGuire’s request, the Court must address defense counsel’s two motions. Both motions request to strike filings by Ms. McGuire and relate to deadlines established by this Court in its notice docketing this claim for review on the record. The docketing notice listed documents it was considering when reviewing the claim and gave the parties deadlines. Relevant here, the docketing notice said, “On or before July 16, 2025, each party shall file any objections to the admissibility of any document listed above and specifically state the legal basis for the objection.” The notice also gave aa July 23 deadline for filing position statements and stated that the Court will not consider any position statements filed after the deadline.  Just two minutes before midnight on July 17, Ms. McGuire filed objections to portions of the listed documents and followed this up by filing an amended, more detailed, list of objections on July 25. Defense counsel opposed the objections and moved to strike them as untimely. The Court agrees and strikes the objections raised by Ms. McGuire in both her July 17 and July 25 filings. Ms. McGuire did not file her position statement until July 25. She said a serious family emergency prevented her from filing it on time and sent an email to the court clerk detailing the circumstances. The clerk forwarded this to defense counsel the next morning, and defense counsel moved to strike the position statement. Under the circumstances described in her email to the clerk, the Court grants her additional time and accepts the position statement. Claim History On December 22, 2023, Ms. McGuire injured her back at work “bending forward and twisting [her] upper body . . . to retrieve a fallen serving tray.” Initially, TC Restaurant Group provided medical treatment and paid temporary disability benefits. Ms. McGuire selected orthopedic spine surgeon Dr. Mitul Patel from a panel. After an MRI, Dr. Patel diagnosed “acute on chronic low back pain” and suspected a “lumbar strain” with “possible disk bulge [at] L4-L5/L5-S1.” On April 22, 2024, he signed a causation questionnaire in which he agreed the “work accident contribute[d] more than 50% to Ms. McGuire’s current complaints.” When asked if the work incident had caused a permanent aggravation, he circled, “Cannot state.” About a month later, Dr. Patel seemed confused in Ms. McGuire’s medical record about her “diffuse symptoms not only in her back but also the neck and the entire left side of her upper and lower extremities.” He wrote, “She is concerned about these neurologic symptoms. She asks for a neurology referral.” Although Dr. Patel wrote the referral, he expressed some doubt about its necessity by writing, “I am not sure if Workmen’s Compensation will cover this. She has simply had so many symptoms ever since she had this relatively benign work-related injury where she dropped a tray and bent over to pick it up.” In June 2024, defense counsel sent Dr. Patel video surveillance of the work accident and a written account from Ms. McGuire about what happened. Counsel asked Dr. Patel to review both the video and statement and then to respond to a series of questions by marking “yes” or “no.” As evidenced by his responses, Dr. Patel’s opinion on medical causation changed after reviewing the video and statement. He could no longer state with a reasonable degree of medical certainty that Ms. McGuire suffered a lumbar strain or that her disc bulge resulted from the work incident. He also saw no other injury that might have occurred from the incident.

FILED Aug 01, 2025 03:29 PM(ET) TENNESSEE COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION IN THE COURT OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS AT KNOXVILLE JERRY R. BURKES, ) Docket No. 2023-03-8195 Employee, ) v. ) SYSCO CORPORATION, ) State File No. 7260-2023 Employer, ) And ) ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE ) Judge Lisa A. Lowe COMPANY, ) Carrier. ) COMPENSATION ORDER Jerry Burkes sustained a work-related left-knee injury. He previously settled his original award and now seeks additional permanent disability benefits. For the reasons below, the Court holds that Mr. Burkes is entitled to increased benefits. History of Claim On January 26, 2023, Mr. Burkes slipped and fell, injuring his left knee. Dr. Michael McCollum diagnosed partial medial and lateral meniscus tears and grade 3 osteoarthritis. Mr. Burkes underwent surgery and suffered from deep vein thrombosis afterward. Dr. McCollum gave him a 10% impairment rating. Other than a short period where Dr. McCollum took Mr. Burkes off work completely, he assigned light-duty restrictions from February through August 2023. At the last visit on August 3, Dr. McCollum placed Mr. Burkes at maximum medical improvement but noted, “I am going to keep him at light duty for the time being.” He returned to work without restrictions on August 24. Mr. Burkes resigned his position sometime that August, but he was unsure whether it was during the light-duty or full-duty timeframe. Dr. McCollum’s records mention Mr. Burkes’s concerns about his ability to perform his job duties several times. 1  The Court approved the initial award settlement on February 29, 2024. The agreement established that Mr. Burkes suffered a compensable left-knee injury; his initial award was $30,316.72; his initial compensation period would expire on July 4, 2024; and Sysco will pay for reasonable, necessary, and related treatment. After the expiration of Mr. Burkes’s initial compensation period, he filed a petition for benefit determination seeking additional permanent disability benefits. At the hearing, Mr. Burkes testified that he knew that he could not perform his regular duties due to the physical nature of his job. Because of that, he felt he had to resign from his employment with Sysco. He ended up moving to North Carolina to be with family and ultimately secured a job with Coastal Enterprises, earning less than pre-injury. Sysco authorized treatment with Dr. Bradley in North Carolina, and he performed a second surgery. Mr. Burkes is currently unemployed. Mr. Burkes said that he asked Dr. McCollum to complete a physician’s certification form to state that he was unable to return to his pre-injury employment, but Dr. McCollum did not respond. Mr. Burkes testified that he was in pain for two and a half years because Dr. McCollum did not fix his knee and he had to have a second surgery. He explained how the injury has affected his activities and relationships with his wife and two sons. They testified as well about the changes in Mr. Burkes after the injury. He also said that he suffered from a hiatal hernia that he relates to the medication Dr. McCollum prescribed. Mr. Burkes asked the Court to award him extraordinary relief of 275 weeks of benefits. Sysco argued that the only issue before the Court is Mr. Burkes’s entitlement to increased benefits. It asserted that Mr. Burkes voluntarily resigned his position, so he is not entitled to increased benefits. Sysco also pointed out that on his Coastal Enterprise application, he answered “no” that he had ever had a knee injury, “no” that he required accommodations, and wrote that he could comfortably lift 40 pounds.1 Further, it pointed out that Mr. Burkes is not eligible for extraordinary relief because he did not file a physician’s certification form, and he is not entitled to hernia benefits because it was not part of the underlying settlement. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Mr. Burkes has the burden of proof on all essential elements of his claim. Scott v. Integrity Staffing Sol