Congress v. District of Columbia
277 F. Supp. 3d 82
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Congress was hired as a DCPS education aide in December 2011 and had pre-existing nerve/back problems. She requested an elevator key and handicapped parking access beginning in or by September 2013.
- In November 2014 she reported to her union being forced to cover classes without certification; in January 2015 a student struck her in the neck and her supervisor allegedly refused to sign paperwork for medical needs.
- DCPS notified her in May 2015 that she was terminated for alleged residency fraud.
- Congress filed an EEOC charge on July 27, 2015 (alleging denial of accommodation and retaliation); she received her EEOC right-to-sue notice in January 2017 and sued in May 2017.
- Court evaluates motions to dismiss: ADA claims subject to Title VII exhaustion rules (180-day charge); Rehabilitation Act exhaustion and limitations issues are unsettled in D.C. Circuit; DCHRA has a one-year limitations period with tolling for timely EEOC filings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADA discrimination (failure to accommodate) | Denial of elevator key and handicapped parking beginning Sept. 2013 constitutes failure to accommodate under ADA | Claim untimely: EEOC charge filed after 180-day statutory window; thus failed to exhaust | Dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies |
| Rehabilitation Act discrimination (failure to accommodate) — statute of limitations | Rehabilitation Act claim can proceed; no mandatory exhaustion; borrow limitations from analogous law | Claim time- barred under either one-year (DCHRA) or three-year (personal injury) limitations; no tolling applies | Dismissed as barred by statute of limitations |
| Retaliation (ADA, Rehab Act, DCHRA) | Protected activity: (1) request for accommodation; (2) complaints to union about forced class coverage — led to termination | (1) No causal link between early accommodation requests and 2015 firing; (2) union complaint about certification is not protected by these statutes | Dismissed for failure to allege protected activity causally connected to adverse action |
| Hostile work environment (ADA, Rehabilitation Act) | Ongoing denial of accommodations, coworkers occupying handicap spaces, supervisor refusal to sign medical paperwork created abusive environment | ADA claim not exhausted with EEOC; Rehabilitation Act hostile-environment claim insufficiently pleaded | ADA hostile-environment claim dismissed for failure to exhaust; Rehabilitation Act hostile-environment claim survives motion to dismiss (plausible at pleading stage) |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (establishes plausibility pleading standard)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must state a plausible claim for relief)
- Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (hostile work environment standard)
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (conduct must be extreme to alter terms/conditions of employment)
- Solomon v. Vilsack, 763 F.3d 1 (request for accommodation is protected activity under ADA/Rehabilitation Act)
- Alexander v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 826 F.3d 544 (discusses statute of limitations borrowing for Rehabilitation Act claims)