Geter v. United States Government Publishing Office
268 F. Supp. 3d 34
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Henry Geter, a former GPO truck driver, injured his back in 2009 and alleges he could not drive due to medical restrictions and narcotic prescriptions.
- Geter previously sued the GPO (Geter I) raising ADA/Rehabilitation Act claims based on an August 2010 incident where he was ordered to drive; the court granted summary judgment for the GPO on failure-to-accommodate and retaliation theories in that suit.
- After Geter I was filed, events giving rise to this new suit occurred: Geter was sent home in November 2013 (dispute whether for lack of CDL or medical limits), requested reassignment/other accommodations, and was removed from employment in April 2014; MSPB and EEOC later upheld the removal.
- Geter filed this action alleging ADA claims for failure to accommodate (reassignment/transfer) and retaliatory termination; he moved for leave to file a second amended complaint to replace earlier Rehabilitation Act claims with ADA claims.
- The GPO opposed amendment as futile, arguing claim preclusion (res judicata), radical change in scope, and that summary judgment should be entered; the Court evaluated futility and preclusion concerns without reaching the merits.
- The Court granted leave to file the second amended complaint, holding claim preclusion did not bar the new claims, declined to apply the summary-judgment standard for futility at this stage, and denied the GPO’s dismissal/summary judgment motion as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether leave to amend is futile due to claim preclusion | Geter: new ADA claims arise from events after Geter I (2013 filing), so not precluded | GPO: claims are the same cause of action and could/should have been raised in Geter I | Court: Not precluded — new claims arose after Geter I filing and exhaustion requirements prevented earlier joinder |
| Whether the proposed amendment radically alters the case scope | Geter: amendments are clarifications (ADA claims, retaliation based on 2014 termination, requested reassignment) within original factual core | GPO: amendments change theory (transfer vs. light duty) and add new retaliation theory | Court: Amendment does not radically alter scope; facts and parties remain the same |
| Whether the Court should apply summary-judgment standard to futility | Geter: premature; no discovery; summary judgment inappropriate now | GPO: Court should decide merits now and enter summary judgment if appropriate | Court: Declines to apply summary-judgment standard at motion-to-amend stage; substantive issues deferred for later briefing |
| Disposition of GPO’s pending motion to dismiss / summary judgment | N/A (procedural) | N/A (procedural) | Court: Denied as moot given grant of leave to amend; parties may renew dispositive motions after amendment |
Key Cases Cited
- Apotex, Inc. v. FDA, 393 F.3d 210 (D.C. Cir.) (res judicata requires same cause of action and shared nucleus of facts)
- Drake v. FAA, 291 F.3d 59 (D.C. Cir.) (res judicata does not bar claims based on facts not in existence when first action filed)
- Ikossi v. Department of Navy, 516 F.3d 1037 (D.C. Cir.) (caution against grant of summary judgment in discrimination cases without discovery)
- Henderson v. Stanton, 172 F.3d 919 (D.C. Cir.) (summary-judgment standard inappropriate to resolve futility of amendment when no discovery)
- Velikonja v. Ashcroft, 355 F. Supp. 2d 197 (D.D.C.) (later-arising discriminatory acts need not be pleaded in an earlier suit and are not precluded)