Atiogbe v. Brennan
1:15-cv-07547
N.D. Ill.May 19, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Dede Atiogbe, a USPS letter carrier, alleges long‑standing disability (diabetes, depression, PTSD, etc.), requested accommodations, and took intermittent leave beginning November 2013.
- While on leave, Atiogbe received various USPS notices about unauthorized absences and a February 20, 2014 personnel letter regarding continuation of health benefits during LWOP; she alleges she expected 365 days of continued coverage.
- Atiogbe alleges her health insurance was prematurely terminated (she discovered unpaid claims in August 2014) and that USPS employees (Hudson, Frazier) submitted paperwork to terminate her employment and benefits; she filed a union grievance that led to a temporary rescission of a termination.
- Atiogbe sought EEO counseling (initial contact July 16, 2014; completed pre‑complaint counseling in September 2014) and filed a formal EEO charge alleging disability discrimination (did not explicitly check retaliation on the formal charge).
- The agency dismissed many allegations as untimely and concluded benefits terminated for nonpayment after a year of LWOP; Atiogbe received a right‑to‑sue and filed this suit alleging disability discrimination (Rehabilitation Act) and retaliation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness / exhaustion of administrative remedies for pre‑Sept. 8, 2014 acts | July 16 EEO contact and illness justify tolling or relate earlier acts to the timely charge | Plaintiff abandoned earlier EEO contact; many acts occurred outside 45‑day window and are time‑barred | Most conduct before July 25, 2014 is time‑barred; plaintiff may amend to plead facts supporting equitable tolling for mental illness |
| Whether claims outside EEOC charge (retaliation) may be considered | Retaliation is reasonably related to the timely discrimination charge about benefits | Plaintiff failed to include retaliation in formal charge so claim is unexhausted | Court allows retaliation claim to proceed insofar as it relates to the timely claim (premature termination of benefits) |
| Disability discrimination claim based on termination of health benefits | Benefits were terminated prematurely because of disability; alleges she was qualified and on authorized LWOP | Termination was administrative or for nonpayment; plaintiff fails to allege she could perform essential functions at the time | The timely claim (premature benefits termination) survives pleading stage as plausibly linked to disability; other accommodation/termination claims dismissed as untimely |
| Equitable tolling for mental illness preventing EEO exhaustion | Mental illness prevented completion of EEO process and response to deadlines | No adequate specific factual allegations showing incapacity to manage affairs; plaintiff took other actions during the period | Plaintiff given leave to amend with specific facts (consistent with Rule 11) to attempt to establish tolling |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (requirement to plead factual content allowing plausible inference of liability)
- Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (discrete acts outside the filing period are time‑barred)
- Cheek v. W. & S. Life Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 497 (claims not in EEOC charge may be heard if like and reasonably related)
- Jenkins v. Blue Cross Mut. Hosp. Ins., 538 F.2d 164 (relation/growing‑out doctrine for administrative charges)
- Miller v. Runyon, 77 F.3d 189 (mental illness tolling requires showing inability to manage affairs)
- Adams v. City of Indianapolis, 742 F.3d 720 (discrete discriminatory acts barred if time‑barred despite relation to timely claims)