Cooper v. Henderson
174 F. Supp. 3d 193
| D.D.C. | 2016Background
- Melissa Cooper, an African‑American special education teacher over 40, returned from foot surgery requiring crutches and an orthopedic boot and requested elevator access and a closer parking spot at Roosevelt Senior High School.
- Use of the only working freight elevator was difficult and sporadic access caused Cooper to be late; she alleges repeated harassment, public reprimands, a 10‑point deduction in her evaluation, and inquiries about retirement plans after her medical leave.
- Cooper was terminated on August 10, 2012; she alleges the termination and a subsequent two‑year delay in processing her retirement paperwork were discriminatory and retaliatory (ADA, Title VII, ADEA, FMLA claims).
- Cooper filed an EEOC charge dated November 25, 2013 (received Dec. 20, 2013), checked Race, Age, Disability, Retaliation, and “Continuing Action”; did not check Sex.
- Defendant moved to dismiss arguing (1) wrong defendant named (Chancellor Henderson rather than the District), (2) failure to exhaust or timely file/bring claims, (3) failure to exhaust sex claim, and (4) FMLA limitations period bar.
- Court substituted the District of Columbia for Chancellor Henderson, dismissed time‑barred discrimination claims predating the EEOC charge, allowed discovery and litigation only on Cooper’s retaliation claim concerning delayed retirement paperwork under ADA/Title VII/ADEA, dismissed sex claim for lack of EEOC exhaustion, and denied dismissal of FMLA claim (found allegation of willfulness and three‑year limitations period).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper defendant | Cooper intended to sue the state agency and named Henderson in official capacity to reach DCPS | Chancellor Henderson argued the District should be named and absence of District warrants dismissal | Court sua sponte substituted the District of Columbia for Henderson and denied dismissal on this ground |
| Timeliness of ADA/Title VII/ADEA claims | Cooper contends claims were timely exhausted; alleged continuing retaliation (retirement paperwork) | Defendant argues EEOC charge was filed too late to cover pre‑termination events and suit was untimely after right‑to‑sue notice | Claims relating to events before Aug 2013 (180 days before EEOC filing) dismissed; surviving claims limited to ongoing retaliation re: retirement paperwork; plaintiff permitted discovery on receipt date of right‑to‑sue notice |
| Failure to exhaust sex discrimination claim | Cooper asserted she exhausted administrative remedies | Defendant: Cooper failed to raise sex claim in EEOC charge | Court dismissed sex/gender discrimination claim for failure to exhaust and for lack of plausible allegations |
| FMLA statute of limitations | Cooper alleges willful FMLA violation allowing three‑year limitations period | Defendant argues two‑year limitations applies and suit is untimely | Court found complaint alleges willful conduct, thus three‑year limitations applies and FMLA claim survives; relation‑back doctrine allows substitution of District |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must state plausible claim to survive dismissal)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (court need not accept legal conclusions as factual allegations)
- Arrington v. District of Columbia, 673 A.2d 674 (D.C. 1996) (distinguishing service and notice issues when substituting District defendant)
- Rendall‑Speranza v. Nassim, 107 F.3d 913 (relation‑back rule for correcting identity of official bodies)
- Griffin v. Acacia Life Ins. Co., 151 F. Supp. 2d 78 (90‑day filing requirement after EEOC right‑to‑sue notice)
- McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co., 486 U.S. 128 (definition of willful conduct in limitations context)