Federal judge sends disability retaliation case against Dep't of Homeland Security to trial

Charlie Batista spent more than a decade earning a reputation as a model federal officer. He joined U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services in 2008, collected award after award, and drew praise from supervisors and the public alike. He also lives with a chronic anxiety disorder—a condition that, on its hardest days, can trigger panic attacks severe enough to send him to the hospital.

In March 2017, Batista asked his agency for something straightforward: a transfer to a nearby office so that a workplace his own doctor had flagged as harmful would stop putting his health at risk. He backed the request with medical documentation. According to his complaint, the answer was not accommodation but retaliation.

On July 1, 2026, a federal judge ruled that Batista is entitled to make that case to a jury. In an order granting in part and denying in part the government's motion for summary judgment, U.S. District Judge Darrin P. Gayles found genuine factual disputes that a trial must resolve, not a pretrial dismissal. The case will now proceed on Batista's claim that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security unlawfully retaliated against him after he requested a disability accommodation in March 2017.

The complaint tells a stark story. After Batista sought the transfer, supervisors at the agency's Miami field office allegedly froze his career-ladder promotion, repeatedly denied him the training routinely given to his colleagues, and generated report after report accusing him of work-product "discrepancies" that Batista maintains never existed. The pressure, he alleges, triggered panic attacks that led to hospitalizations, emergency treatment, and, ultimately, a move to another state. Months later, his own annual performance review praised him as professional and courteous—and said nothing about the errors his supervisors had used to justify holding him back.

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the federal law that shields disabled employees from discrimination and retaliation, makes it illegal for a federal agency to punish a worker for asking for a reasonable accommodation. Judge Gayles's ruling means a jury will now weigh whether that is exactly what happened to Batista.

"No one should have to choose between their health and their career, and no federal employee should be punished for asking for the reasonable accommodation the law guarantees," said Jordan D. Howlette, who represents Batista. "The court's ruling recognizes that Charlie Batista deserves his day in court, and we look forward to proving to a jury what Charlie was made to endure."

The case is Charlie Batista v. Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al. (Case No. 1:22-cv-20934-DPG), filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.