A former Georgetown University track and field associate head coach is alleging in ongoing litigation that the university failed to accommodate her veteran, disability and pregnancy-related accommodations.
In April 2024, Kaymarie Williams asked university administrators to allow her to return to work after she was honorably discharged from service in the National Guard. Nearly two years later, she is in active litigation with the university, alleging employment discrimination.
Williams filed an official complaint in federal court on June 27, 2025, contending the university failed to promptly reinstate her as an employee and did not meaningfully engage with her requests for disability and pregnancy accommodations — claims Georgetown has denied.
Georgetown contests Williams’ discrimination claims and alleges that university officials made a concerted effort to reemploy her after her National Guard service.
The lawsuit accuses the university of violating the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA), a federal law protecting employment rights for veterans and reservists, including requiring employers to rehire them. It also alleges, under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), that the university illegally treated Williams differently due to her “service-connected disabilities,” and violated several other federal and Washington, D.C. laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex, pregnancy and veteran status, including Title VII.
The university asked the court to dismiss Williams’ USERRA, ADA and Title VII claims, arguing that it offered Williams positions at the university after she was discharged and offered accommodations for her pregnancy and disabilities.
Williams’ attorney, Roland Blackman, said the university ignored Williams’ requests to return to work.
“She’s looking for re-employment,” Blackman told The Hoya. “She’s expecting to receive a paycheck. And those benefits and health insurance and the standard package that she had before and just to continue to receive those things as a Georgetown employee. But instead, she was ignored.”
A university spokesperson declined to comment on the ongoing litigation. The university’s attorneys also declined to comment.
Williams coached Georgetown’s track and field team from August 2021 until she was deployed to the North Carolina National Guard on Feb. 1, 2023. According to her civil suit, she remained an official employee of Georgetown without a position until Oct. 16, 2025, when the university terminated her employment.
The Hoya reviewed 282 pages of case documents and reviewed the litigation with five experts in employment and discrimination law to understand the allegations.
Adam Augustine Carter (CAS ’87, LAW ’91), an employment lawyer and USERRA expert, said a veteran is entitled to reemployment by their previous employer if they fulfill four conditions: notifying their employer of their service, serving less than five years, being honorably discharged and giving prompt notice of their return.
“If those four things are present and only those four things, you have an absolute right to this term called re-employment,” Carter told The Hoya.
After notifying the university of her discharge and service-related disabilities April 4, 2024, Williams submitted three accommodation requests between May 2024 and October 2025.
In her initial email to human resources (HR) informing them of her discharge and disability status, Williams stated she could return to work immediately. She asserted her qualifications for positions beyond a coaching role, citing her master’s degree in leadership. On May 16, 2024, Williams said that she was pregnant and only interested in remote or hybrid roles.
After informing the university of her discharge, Williams worked with an HR representative to apply to 14 roles at the university between March 14, 2024 and March 26, 2025.
In a Dec. 18, 2024, email to an HR representative — eight months after her initial request — Williams said she had not heard back from the university.
“I have applied for several positions, both hybrid and in-person, and I remain open to any role that I qualify for,” Williams wrote in the email. “This lack of communication and resolution has been incredibly frustrating, as I have been actively waiting for an opportunity to return to Georgetown. The delay has also caused significant stress and uncertainty, as it directly impacts both my professional career and personal well-being.”
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on several conditions, including sex and pregnancy status. Williams alleges the university did not provide accommodations for her pregnancy and therefore violated Title VII.
In April 2025, Georgetown offered Williams a business administrator position and withdrew it three days later. In September, Williams was offered an HR position, which she claimed would be medically unsuitable. Williams’ complaint states that the university’s next correspondence was her Oct. 16 termination letter.
Blackman said the lawsuit is based on the university’s alleged violation of USERRA protections by failing to assign Williams a position or compensate her.
“She sued because Georgetown did not provide her reasonable accommodation, they did not meaningfully engage in the interactive process in her request for reasonable accommodation and she, as a vet who had been honorably discharged from the military, was in need of being promptly placed back into her employment status at Georgetown,” Blackman said.
Williams claims that the university violated USERRA by not re-employing her, not engaging with her request for re-employment for nine months and not accommodating her service-related disabilities.
In the university’s motion to dismiss the case, Georgetown claims it did not violate USERRA because Williams was offered several positions, including her original coaching role. The university claims Williams did not provide proof of an explicit disability and that Williams’ termination was due to unreasonable accommodation requests.
Additionally, the university says they accommodated Williams’ disabilities and her pregnancy to the greatest extent possible, but were unable to find roles that met her qualifications and needs.
Kyndra Rotunda, a professor of military law at Chapman University, said the lawsuit alleges that Georgetown may have violated USERRA by failing to reemploy Williams.
“According to the complaint, it appears that Georgetown is not and has not fulfilled its legal obligations to a former employee, Ms. Williams, who was deployed in service of her country,” Rotunda wrote to The Hoya. “The US Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) requires that returning service members be reemployed without disadvantages; in the same or a substantially similar position.”
Carter said federal law requires reemployment — employees must be placed on a payroll, but are not required to return to a specific position.
“Re-employment means coming back to work and getting back on a payroll,” Carter said. “It does not mean ‘oh, you have to apply for this job or that job.’ It should be, ‘welcome home’ and arms open from the employer — ‘come back, we’ll put you on payroll and put you back on all the benefits and then we will figure out what job you do.’ Not, ‘We have to find the right job that you’re medically capable of doing.’”
In a parallel claim in the lawsuit, Williams alleges that her Oct. 16 termination was retaliation for her repeated accommodation requests and complaints.
After seven months without communication from the university’s HR department, Williams filed a complaint with the Department of Labor’s Veterans’ Employment and Training Service (VETS), a federal organization that helps veterans find employment, on Dec. 16, 2024.
Three months later, on Feb. 10, 2025, Williams filed her first complaint with Georgetown’s Office of Institutional Diversity, Equity & Affirmative Action (IDEAA), which began an internal process to assess her case.
The lawsuit alleges the university then retaliated against Williams for her complaints with VETS and IDEAA by rescinding two job offers — the business administrator and HR roles — and later terminating her.
Successful retaliation claims include an employee engaging in a legally protected activity, an adverse action by the employer and a clear link between the events.
In its motion to dismiss, the university argues it could not have engaged in retaliation under Title VII because it claims Williams is not protected under the statute because her legally protected activity does not involve her race, religion or sex. It further argues that since Georgetown offered Williams employment, there was no retaliation.
On Oct. 17, the day after Williams’ termination, university lawyers filed a motion to dismiss the case.
In its response, the university said Georgetown attempted to reinstate Williams as a coach and offered a position that respected her accommodations.
“Namely, her Complaint fails to state a claim because Plaintiff admits that Georgetown offered both to reinstate her to her original position, and then, following a request for an accommodation, offered to reassign her to a position that comported with the accommodation she requested,” the motion reads.
Blackman said Georgetown’s motion to dismiss offers conflicted arguments.
“Georgetown argues that they had no knowledge that she had a disability, but in another instance, in the termination letter, they said that they’re terminating the reasonable accommodation process, which is only applicable if a person has a disability,” Blackman said. “So it’s unclear what Georgetown’s argument is, but it’s clear that they’re making two arguments at the same time that conflict with each other.”
Following a hearing on Dec. 18, 2025, the case now awaits mediation, a process in which a neutral third party attempts to settle a lawsuit.
Blackman said Williams hopes her case encourages the university to amend their policies around disability accommodations.
“There’s no doubt about Georgetown’s contribution to public service and hopefully her case is an opportunity for Georgetown to revisit its policies to make sure that when students, when faculty, when employees, when they do their public service, that Georgetown upholds its end of the bargain and makes sure that they’re protected and makes sure their rights are not violated,” Blackman said.
