Galaza v. Mayorkas

The ATSA establishes basic qualifications for the position of ATSA security screener, including physical requirements, and states that “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law, an individual may not be deployed as a security screener unless that individual meets” those requirements. 49 U.S.C. § 44935(f).

Galaza appeals the dismissal of her discrimination action under the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 791, 794, against the Transport Security Administration (“TSA”). Galaza was terminated despite being cleared to return to work after an injury and rehabilitation, because she was unable to fulfill all of her duties. The district court dismissed her Rehabilitation Act claim because the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA) preempted the Rehabilitation Act. Galaza argued that the termination fell under the Rehabilitation Act and could be harmonized with the ATSA. Galaza also argued that she could work in other limited duty positions. The ATSA establishes basic qualifications for the position of ATSA security screener, including physical requirements, and states that “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law, an individual may not be deployed as a security screener unless that individual meets” those requirements. 49 U.S.C. § 44935(f) (emphasis added). The Court held the decision to terminate Galaza was not a violation of the Rehabilitation Act. The Court declined to address whether the WPEA made the Rehabilitation Act applicable to screeners as the WPEA was not retroactive. The Court found that Congress intended and other jurisdictions held the ATSA preempted the Rehabilitation Act. AFFIRMED