motion for summary judgment. IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the court denies the defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs discrimination claim and hostile work environment claim. However, because her application for CSRS benefits precludes it, the court dismisses the plaintiffs Rehabilitation Act claim. In addition, the court denies the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiffs hostile work environment claim and retaliation and discrimination claims. An order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is separately and contemporaneously issued this 7th day of August, 2008. 1 . The defendant does ok the same position, holding that plaintiffs can claim SSA benefits and sue their employers under the ADA. Swanks v. WMATA, 116 F.3d 582, 586 (D.C.Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). 5 . The plaintiff could obtain other CSRS
holding that offset for social security retirement benefits does not include federal disability benefits and stating that there was no legislative intent to embody the entire subchapter of the social security act dealing with both disability benefits and old age benefits recognizing that individuals should not have to choose between seeking ada relief foregofing their entitlement to social security benefits and recovering benefits sacrificing an opportunity for reinstatement while simultaneously shielding their employers from liability for allegedly unlawful discrimination holding that use of social security benefits satisfied child support obligation recognizing general enforceability of plan provisions reducing benefits by amount of any social security benefits holding that an evidentiary hearing is not required prior to the termination of social security disability benefits