324 F. Supp. 3d 164
D.C. Cir.2018Background
- Trina Congress, hired as an education aide in 2011, suffers from nerve damage and requested accommodations (elevator key, accessible parking); her principal allegedly denied those requests and denied/limited medical leave.
- She filed internal complaints in Oct. 2014; immediately afterward a prior residency-fraud investigation was reopened.
- In Jan.–May 2015 she was on workers’ compensation leave following an assault; upon return she received a negative evaluation and later was terminated in May 2015 for alleged residency fraud.
- Congress filed EEOC and D.C. Office of Human Rights charges (checked retaliation and disability discrimination; alleged denial of accommodation and termination) and later received a right-to-sue letter.
- Congress sued the District in 2017; after initial counsel withdrew she amended the complaint with leave; the District moved to dismiss. The court dismissed all ADA claims and two Rehabilitation Act hostile-work-environment claims, but allowed Rehabilitation Act claims for discriminatory discharge and retaliation to proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Congress exhausted administrative remedies for ADA hostile-work-environment claim | EEOC charge should be read broadly; plaintiff need not use magic words to exhaust a hostile-work-environment claim | Charge did not mention ongoing pattern or harassment; it described discrete events (failure to accommodate, termination) so it did not exhaust a hostile-work-environment claim | Court: No exhaustion; ADA hostile-work-environment claim dismissed |
| Which statute of limitations applies to Rehabilitation Act hostile-work-environment claims | Three-year D.C. personal-injury limitations applies, making claims timely | One-year D.C. Human Rights Act limitations is the proper analogue, making claims untimely | Court: Borrow D.C. Human Rights Act one-year statute; hostile-work-environment Rehabilitation Act claims time-barred |
| Whether ADA discrimination/retaliation claims were timely filed after right-to-sue letter | Suit was timely because prior counsel attempted to file within 90 days | Prior counsel was not an active member of the court bar; attempted April filing did not effect filing; suit (May 15, 2017) was more than 90 days after receipt | Court: ADA claims untimely; ADA discrimination and retaliation dismissed |
| Whether amended complaint plausibly pleads Rehabilitation Act discriminatory discharge and retaliation | Complaints about denied accommodations (protected activity), reopening of prior investigation immediately after that complaint, and termination plausibly show causation and discriminatory discharge | Earlier complaint failed to plead causation; but motion now challenges sufficiency | Court: Rehabilitation Act claims for discriminatory discharge and retaliation survive; pleadings sufficiently plausible to proceed to discovery |
Key Cases Cited
- Sissel v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 760 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir.) (standard for accepting well-pled allegations on motion to dismiss)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard under Rule 12(b)(6))
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must be plausible)
- Marshall v. Federal Express Corp., 130 F.3d 1095 (D.C. Cir.) (EEOC charge must give notice of claims to exhaust)
- Park v. Howard Univ., 71 F.3d 904 (D.C. Cir.) (scope of EEOC charge; ‘‘reasonably expected upon investigation’’ standard)
- Baloch v. Kempthorne, 550 F.3d 1191 (D.C. Cir.) (hostile-work-environment standard)
- Solomon v. Vilsack, 763 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir.) (protected activity and causal link in retaliation claims)
- Jaiyeola v. District of Columbia, 40 A.3d 356 (D.C. 2012) (D.C. Court of Appeals adopting D.C. Human Rights Act as analogous statute of limitations for Rehabilitation Act claims)