Nazario v. Garland et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
RAUL NAZARIO,
Plaintiff,
v.
PAMELA BONDI, ATTORNEY
GENERAL, et al.,
Defendant.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:22-CV-01366
(SAPORITO, J.)
ORDER
AND NOW, this 11th day of March, 2026, in accordance with the
accompanying Memorandum, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. 	The defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 36) is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
2. 	The motion is GRANTED with respect to the following claims
under the Rehabilitation Act: (1) retaliation concerning the plaintiff ’s
prior 	EEO 	complaint; 	(2) 	unlawful 	interference; 	and 	(3) 	retaliatory
hostile work environment, and GRANTED with respect to the plaintiff ’s
claims under Title VII: (1) disparate treatment; (2) retaliation; and (3)
retaliatory hostile work environment; and
3. 	The motion is DENIED with respect to the following claims
Case 3:22-cv-01366-JFS Document 53 Filed 03/11/26 Page 1 of 2

- 2 -
under 	the 	Rehabilitation 	Act: 	(1) 	failure 	to 	provide 	reasonable
accommodations; (2) disparate treatment; and (3) retaliation concerning
the plaintiff ’s request for reasonable accommodations.
4. 	The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of the defendant with
respect 	to 	the 	following 	claims 	under 	the 	Rehabilitation 	Act: 	(1)
retaliation concerning the plaintiff ’s prior EEO complaint; (2) unlawful
interference; and (3) retaliatory hostile work environment, and enter
judgment in favor of the defendant with respect to the plaintiff ’s claims
under 	Title 	VII: 	(1) 	disparate 	treatment; 	(2) 	retaliation; 	and 	(3)
retaliatory hostile work environment.
Dated: March ______, 2026
JOSEPH F. SAPORITO, JR.
United States District Judge
Case 3:22-cv-01366-JFS Document 53 Filed 03/11/26 Page 2 of 2