389 F. Supp. 3d 53
D.C. Cir.2019Background
- Plaintiff worked for Pepco from 1994 until her termination on June 21, 2018; she went on long‑term disability in 2006 for a depressive illness and later asserted she was fit to return by 2016.
- Pepco sent a June 23, 2016 letter saying Plaintiff was unable to return to her assigned position due to her medical condition but offering to work with her provider on accommodations and warning of termination if she did not respond by August 23, 2016.
- Plaintiff replied before the deadline and submitted medical documentation asserting she could work; she alleges repeated HR assurances (Aug 2016–May 2017) that a position had been identified but she was not reinstated.
- In January 2018 Pepco told Plaintiff she had to identify and apply for open positions herself and would be terminated if not selected by April 20, 2018; she was terminated June 21, 2018.
- Plaintiff filed an EEOC charge on March 19, 2018 (and a separate charge after termination) and sued under the ADA and DCHRA for disability discrimination; Defendants moved to dismiss for untimeliness and failure to state a claim.
- The court dismissed claims based on the June 2016 letter and the Aug 2016–May 2017 comments as untimely, but allowed claims based on the January 2018 90‑day requirement and the June 21, 2018 termination to proceed, finding the Amended Complaint states plausible ADA/DCHRA discrimination claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness under ADA/DCHRA | Plaintiff contends cross‑filing with D.C. agency extends ADA filing period to 300 days | Defendants argue 180‑day ADA limit applies because Plaintiff initially filed with EEOC; DCHRA has one‑year rule | ADA claims timely only for acts on/after 9/19/2017; DCHRA claims timely for acts on/after 6/14/2017; June 2016 and Aug 2016–May 2017 allegations dismissed as untimely; Jan 2018 and June 21, 2018 claims timely |
| Perceived‑disability / record‑of‑disability status | Plaintiff alleges long‑term disability placement and Pepco letter show Pepco perceived her as disabled and she has a record of disability | Defendants say awareness/use of long‑term benefits is insufficient to show Pepco perceived her as disabled under ADA | Court finds Plaintiff pleaded facts sufficient to show both perceived disability and a record of disability at pleading stage |
| Qualification for reinstatement | Plaintiff argues prior long service, HR assurances that positions existed, and that Pepco blocked access to positions support an inference she was qualified | Defendants say Plaintiff failed to identify specific positions and thus failed to plead she was qualified | Court finds it a close call but holds allegations suffice at Rule 12(b)(6) stage to infer Plaintiff was a qualified individual |
| Adverse action causation | Plaintiff says (1) failure to reinstate under a different, burdensome process and (2) termination are adverse actions taken because of disability | Defendants argue threats/administrative steps were not materially adverse and termination merely reflected long absence | Court holds failure to reinstate (changing to a 90‑day self‑search requirement) and the actual termination can constitute adverse actions and Plaintiff alleged they were motivated by disability; claims survive dismissal pending discovery |
Key Cases Cited
- Ralls Corp. v. Comm. on Foreign Inv. in the United States, 758 F.3d 296 (D.C. Cir.) (courts need not accept legal conclusions on a motion to dismiss)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must provide factual content rendering claim plausible)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Mohasco Corp. v. Silver, 447 U.S. 807 (1980) (rationale for extended filing periods in deferral states)
- Schuler v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 514 F.3d 1365 (D.C. Cir.) (EEOC/D.C. Office of Human Rights work‑sharing explained)
- Duncan v. Wash. Metro. Transit Auth., 240 F.3d 1110 (D.C. Cir.) (standard for substantial limitation in working activity)
- Gordon v. U.S. Capitol Police, 778 F.3d 158 (D.C. Cir.) (plaintiff need not plead facts proving every element to survive Rule 12(b)(6))
- Kaufman v. Perez, 745 F.3d 521 (D.C. Cir.) (failure to reinstate may be actionable where disparate treatment is shown)
- Barrett v. Covington & Burling LLP, 979 A.2d 1239 (D.C. 2009) (threats of termination are not necessarily adverse when status does not change)