Elzeneiny v. District of Columbia
125 F. Supp. 3d 18
| D.D.C. | 2015Background
- Plaintiff Amina Elzeneiny worked as a Budget Analyst for D.C. Office of Budget and Planning from 2003; she suffers from fibromyalgia and repeatedly requested accommodations (flextime, work-from-home, ergonomic equipment, handicapped access).
- OBP granted most accommodations but sometimes after substantial delays; several accommodations were modified, temporarily discontinued, or made conditional between 2007–2010.
- Plaintiff filed administrative charges with OHR/EEOC (disputed filing dates of Dec. 19, 2005 or Mar. 28, 2006) and later added FMLA and additional retaliation claims in amended complaints; discovery was reopened to cover those new claims.
- After an FMLA leave in 2011, Plaintiff was terminated, then reinstated when an administrative error was found; she was reassigned to a less demanding role and resigned six months later, alleging constructive discharge.
- Defendant moved for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of later-added Counts III–V for discovery noncompliance and arguing most remaining ADA/DCHRA claims are time-barred or fail on the merits because OBP acted in good faith and provided accommodations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Counts III–V should be dismissed for failure to sit for a deposition | Elzeneiny said health/travel constraints prevented in-person deposition; counsel sought remote options and attempted to coordinate; she remained willing to be deposed | District argued Plaintiff willfully disobeyed the Court's order to be deposed and sought dismissal as a discovery sanction | Denied without prejudice; court declined dismissal as a last-resort sanction and allowed the deposition to be rescheduled |
| Whether DCHRA claims predating Mar. 10, 2008 may proceed | Elzeneiny did not contest in opposition | District argued she elected administrative remedies before OHR, precluding court suit for pre-March 10, 2008 acts | Granted for pre-March 10, 2008 claims; those acts under OHR process cannot be pursued in court |
| Whether ADA claims are time-barred for acts before the EEOC filing window | Elzeneiny disputed the EEOC filing date and invoked continuing-violation theory for hostile work environment | District argued many discrete acts fall outside the 300-day window and are untimely | Court assumed earlier filing date where disputed but held discrete acts outside the filing period are time-barred; hostile-work-environment claims may proceed if at least one contributing act occurred within the period |
| Merits: failure-to-accommodate, hostile work environment, constructive discharge, retaliation | Elzeneiny argued delays, removal of accommodations (2008), conditional limitations (post-2009), harassment, reassignment and demeaning duties led to constructive discharge and retaliation | District showed it provided most accommodations, proffered business reasons/undue burden for limiting accommodations, and contested severity/connection of alleged harassment | Summary judgment for District on almost all counts. Surviving claims narrowed to discontinuation/removal of certain accommodations and limited timely hostile-environment allegations; no constructive-discharge or broader retaliation recovery survived |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary-judgment standards and nonmovant burden)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (standard for ruling on material fact disputes based on record evidence)
- Morgan v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., 536 U.S. 101 (discrete acts vs. hostile-work-environment and continuing-violation doctrine)
- Mogenhan v. Napolitano, 613 F.3d 1162 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (delayed accommodations may be unreasonable in context)
- Mayers v. Laborers' Health & Safety Fund of N. Am., 478 F.3d 364 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (continuing-violation doctrine limitations)
- Baird v. Gotbaum, 662 F.3d 1246 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (linking incidents for hostile-environment claim)
- Baloch v. Kempthorne, 550 F.3d 1191 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (hostile-work-environment legal standard)
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993) (severity/pervasiveness standard for hostile-work-environment)
- Bonds v. District of Columbia, 93 F.3d 801 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (dismissal is last-resort sanction for discovery violations)
- Clark v. Marsh, 665 F.2d 1168 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (constructive-discharge where employee effectively locked out of advancement)